Wm. H. Moore; Cincinnati. Mark H. Newman, N. York^ 

wm. H. mooRE & CO., 

PUBUSHERS MD DEALERS IN 

THEOLOGICAL, MEDICAL, CLASSICAL, 

AND 

AND 

STAPLE & FANCY STATIONERY. 

With every facility for obtaining their stock on tlie best possible ternw, they 
are enabled to sell Wholesale or Retail at 

NEW YORK PRICES, 

Adding in some cases, the cost of transportation. 



MISCELLANEOUS BOOKS. 

Public ^attention is invited to our assortment of standard "works of various 
kinds, including History, Biography, Travels, Poetry and Fiction, to which addi- 
tions are received every few days, of most that is new and valuable, issued from 
the American press. 

THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS BOOKS. 

'' The special attention of Clergymen, Theological Students, and purchasers of 
Religious Books, is requested to our assortment of works on Biblical Criticism, 
Ecclesiastical History, and in Theological and Religious Literature, for sale at 
the lowest prices. 

SCHOOL AND CLASSICAL BOOKS. 

'' Country Merchants, Schools, and Colleges, supplied on the most favorable 
terms, with School and Classical Books, (our assortment in this department ia 
very large,) and with every variety of Stationery — Letter and Cap Writing 
Paper, Blank Books, Steel Pens, Quills, Ink, Inkstands, Slates, etc. etc. 



lO' For a list of the Publicationa of W. H. M. & Co., see last part of this 
volume. 



DEBATE ON SLAVEEY. 



HELD <»« TB8 



FIRST, SECOND, THIRD AND SIXTH DAYS 
OF OCTOBER, 1845, 

IN THE CITY OF CINCINNATI, 



REV. J. BLANCHARD, 

PASTOR OF THE SIXTH PRBSBYTERIAN CHURCH, 
AND 

N. L. RICE, D. D, 

■ PASTOR or THK CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 



FOURTH THOUSAND. 



CINCINNATI: 
iWM. H. MOORED CO., PUBLISHERS, 

110, Main Street between Third and Fourth. 
NEW YORK: MARK H. NEWMAN. 

I»IDCCCXLVI. 



/- 



bL 



I 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1846, by 

WILLIAM H. MOORE & CO., 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Oliio. 



CORRESPONDENCE, 

Cincinnati, July 3, 1345. 

Rbv. N. L. Eice, D. D.— The undersigned, believing with yourself, that the 
full, free, and kind discussion of grave and practical questions tends to benefit 
the community by diffusing light— and holding views of the teachings of scrip- 
ture, on the subject of slavery, different from those which you are accustomed to 
inculcate— respectfully ask whether it will suit your convenience soon, lo debate 
with some respectable and competent minister of the Gospel, who shall maintain 
the views commonly taken by abolitionists, the question ; 

Is the practice of slave-holding in itself sinful, and the relation created by it 
a sinful relation ? 

Provided it may suit your convenience lo take part in such a discussion soon, 
"we shall be happy to make the necessary arrangements. 

George McCullough, Thomas Heaton, And'w Benton, 
James Calhoun, C. Donaldson, S. P. Chase, 

William Birney, J. McCullough, H. S. Gilmobb. 

G. Bailey, 

Cincinnati, July 5, 1845. 
Messrs. Heaton, Donaldson, &c. 

Gentlemen — Your letter of the 3d inst., inviting me lo a public discussion of 
the claims of abolitionism, with some "respectable and competent minister of the 
Gt>spel," is before me. Though unaccustomed to give challenges of this kind, I 
do not feel disposed to decline yours. It is, therefore, accepted, on condition that 
the debate be reported by one or more competent stenographers, to be employed 
by the parties, tlie copy-riglu immediately sold to a publisher in the ciiy, and 
published as soon as possible afier it closes. I prefer the following modificaiioa 
of your question — Is slave holditig in itself sinftd, and the relation between 
master and slave necessarily a sinful relation ? The limeof holiUng the debate 
I am disposed to fix as early as previous engagements permit. On this subject, as 
also concerning the oUier preliminaries, Tshall be pleased to confer with you at 
your earliest convenience. I shall expect to be informed, without delay, what 
minister you have selected. Pvespectfully, 

N. L. Rice. 

The gentlemen who sent the challenge agreed lo the following modification of 
the question proposed by them— /s slave-holding in itself sinful, and the rela- 
tion between master and slave, a sinful relation ? Key. J. Bjuanchabd was se- 
lected lo represent their views. 



CERTIFICATE. 

We have revised the following sheets for the press, and corrected iJiem in the 
proof, and have no hesitation to authenticate this book, as a full and fair report of 
the arguments presented and authoriiiee quoted, by us in our late discussion held 
in this city. J. Blanchabd, •• 

CincinnaU, Not. 24, 1845. N. L. R*cb. 



STEREOTYPED BY E, SIIEPARD. 



ADVERT ISEM ENT. 

The Publishers commend this work to public attention as a learned, 
spirited, and thorough discussion of the great moral question — whether 
the relation of slavery, divested of all circumstances not necessarily 
connected with it, is sinful. The debate grew out of the proceedings 
of the last meeting of the (O. S.) General Assembly of the Presby- 
terian church, in regard to slavery, in which Dr. Rice was a conspicu- 
ous actor, and the author of a series of resolutions, touching this subject, 
which were passed by that body. He was soon after invited to a 
debate, by some gentlemen of this city, and Mr. Blanchard was chosen 
as his opponent. Their respective friends regarded these gentlemen 
as their most able advocates, and each party, confident of success, 
relied on the skill and logical power hitherto exhibited by them, on 
similar occasions. The discussion was held in the Tabernacle, the 
largest room in the city, and was listened to by a crowded audience 
of great respectability, during the whole of the twenty-four hours 
it occupied. It was conducted on both sides with constant refer- 
ence to publication, and everything pertinent to the subject was 
urged in as concise a manner as the mode of debate would admit. 
Two reporters of eminence, A. J. Stansberry, Esq., of Washington city, 
and Edward P. Cranch, Esq., of Cincinnati, were employed. The 
report was written out by them, revised by the parties, and is here 
given with a complete index prefixed. In short, nothing that could, 
in their judgment, increase the value of the book, has been withheld 
by either authors or publishers. 

There is no subject at this moment receiving a greater share of the 
attention of Christendom than this — none certainly involving more 
important consequences to our civil and ecclesiastical institutions. It 
employed the energies of the first minds of Great Britain for nearly 
half a century. We are at length called on as individuals, as States, 
and as a Nation, to examine the arguments, and to renounce, or defend 
and ameliorate the system, as we shall or shall not find it consistent 
with justice and truth. Diversity of opinion concerning it has already 
divided several of our largest and most influential churches, threatens 
others, and is influencing in a greater or less degree the political affairs 
of every State in the Union. Is not then a calm, truth-seeking, ex- 
hausting discussion of this question, a thing which should be welcomed 
by every lover of trutb, of the State and the church *? Such being 
the topic and character of the discussion, the publishers, with confi- 
dence, anticipate a large sale for this volume, 

Cincinnati. Dec., 1845. 



INDEX. 



MH. BLANCHAHD'S SPEECHES. 

Abolition, first modern society 63 

Africans slaves of Romans. 269 

Alterations of Judaism by Christianity 460 

Assembly, Presby'n Gen. of 1818 , 62, 91 

Apostrophe — a Southern Tamar 47 

Bailey, Dr. quoted 15 

Bible, apostrophe to 304 

Biiile made a slave-holder's smith-shop 424 

Bible translation • 366 

Bond-service, Mosaic, its reason 418 

Cases difficult, considered 346 

Church members hold slaves for gain 43 

Churches of New Testament non-slave-holding 230 

Colonization at Andover 457 

Contrast between Hebrew bond service and slavery 41.5 

Concluding address , • . . . 469 

Cruelty in the slave-making law 66, 69 

Cruelties of slavery 113—122 

Declaration of Independence unpopular. 14 

Emancipation in France and England 233, 234 

" in West Indies 239,282 

" of slaves for merit 207 

«' old deeds of 233 

Escaping slaves permitted by Dr. Rice 366 

Extreme cases, vs. ordinary cases 175 

Equivocal position of Dr. Rice 359 

Force, physical, discountenanced 277 

Do. do. justified in using 278 

Fugitives from slavery 272 

Fugitives countenanced by Dr. Rice 359 

Gopher, two ends to its side 359 

Gradualism, Rice's zeal for 270 

Golden Rule, slave-holders' 351 

Hebrew servants property holders 455 

Hebrew servants were not slaves 328 — 336 

Hebrew bond service considered 355 — 399 

Immediate abolition defined 238 

Interpretation, Dr. Rice's principle applied 421 

Indian slavery milder than white 63 

Justifying slave-holding justifies slavery 299 — 308 

Kentuckians, address to 298 

King of Kings' mark 347 

Liberty secured to Hebrew servants 411 

Legal relation 468 

Laws of slavery quoted 71, 145 

**• " aflford slaves no protection 71 

Marriage without civil recognition 6i 



INDEX — MR. BLANCIIARD' B SPEECHES. V 

Marriage, how described '96 

Marriage impossible in slavery 203 

New England clergy 42"^ 

New Testamert argument 418, 433 

Ordinance of 1787 16 

Oithodox on one point 90, 2G9 

Orphans, Kentucky law of 144 

Paternity destroyed by slavery 47 

Practices human, two classes of 10 

Protection of slaves and children compared 122 and 144 

Preachers ambitious. Sectarians described 2^9 

Revivals in slave-holding churches 1^)2 

Relations, two classes of 10 

Relation of slavery analyzed 293 

Rights inalienable, doctrine of 90 

Relation of slavery sinful 177 

Soul-drivers' complaint 300 

S'avc, Hebrew word for 40S, 419 

Slaves, number of, in Christendom 12 

Slavery all contained in chattel statutes CS 

" in lav/ is slavery in fact 68 — 94 

" does not respect color. , ^ 18 

" Pa!ey''s definition of. . . 19 

" other definitions of 21, 45 

" the same in all nations 21, 2:2 

" as a civil and social condition 12 

" Roman and English, by Dulany 22 

*' is " kidnapping sti'etched out" 179 

" contrary to law of love 182 

'* is " going with a multitude to do evil" 2-I8 

'* sinful, or nothing in slavery is 299 

" the best possible state of society 358 

Slave-soldier in American Revolution 94 

Slave-holding not redemption 172 

Slave-holding sinful in itself explained 174 

Stealing in Sparta, illustration 174 

Teaching slaves forbid 110, 111 

Villeinage 23 

Voting, doctrine of 44 

PEKSOXS AND PAPERS QUOTED OR ALLUDED TO BY MR. BLANCHARD. 

Aristotle, 21. . . Apelles, 42. . .Assembly Gen. of Free Church of 
Scotland, 224. . ."American Board," 458. . .Abbe Greguine, 236. . . 

Rev. R. N. Anderson, 164 Dr. Bailey, 15. . .Dr. Bullard, of St. 

liouis, 167. . . .Dr. Beecher, 274. . . .Robt. J. Breckenridge, 363. .. . 
V\"m. L. Breckenridge, 115. . .C. M. Clay, 270, 397. . .Judge Catron, 
!i4. . . .Judge Crenshaw, 45. . . . Dr. Cunningham, 222, 419. . .Dr. A. 

Clarlve, 456. . .Dr. Coke, 390 Clarkson, 275, 297 Dulany, 22, 

23. . . .Rev. Jas. Duncan, 42, 203. . . . Dr. Duncomb, 42. . . .Edvvards 
Pres't. Giesler, 231 ... .Gregory the Great, Pope, 231. .. .Heyrick 
Elizabeth, 238. . .T. Kellogg, Prest. Knox College, 165. . .Dr. Jun- 
kin, IB2, 228. . .Professor Miller, 3G4 Maimonldes, 412. . . .Mon- 
tesquieu, 364. . . . Moore Thomas, 49. . . .Charles Hammond, 49. . . . 

Charles James Fox, 15 Ignatius, 15, 230 McGufTey, W. H. 

182. . .Rev. S. Steele, 165 Prof. Thcrnwell, J. H. 181. . . . United 

Bretliren in Christ, 390. .. .United Associate Synod, 233.. . .John 



Yl INDEX — MR. RICE S SPEECHES. 

Newton. 179, 269. . .Dr. Wayland, 19 Robertson's Chas. V-....' 

Bishop Polk, 2;?5...Dr. Peckard, 23G. . .Granville Sharpe, 236... 
Thompson Scoble's Scales, 238. . . .Mr. Pickens, of South Carolina, 
294. . .George McDuffio, 358. . .Washington, 3G4 Dr. J. L. Wil- 
son, 3G.5, 410. . .Otterbcin, 390. . . .Rev. Jamos Smylie, 4'3. . . . Slave 
Richard, sexton of Danville church, 62. . . .Slave Frederick, 94.. . . 

Slave Auausta, 113 Hon. J. R. Giddinas, 63, 109 Hon. .lohn 

INlcLoan, 65. . . Judo-e Shaw, 65. . . .J. G. Whittier, 95. . ..John Wes- 
ley, 97, 36-3... Dr. Hill, 110 Dr. Wilson. 111... Mr. Linsley, 112 

. . .New Orleans Picayune, 113. . .Synod of Kentucky, 115. . .Pres. 
Youncr, 115. . . Dr. David Rice, 117. . .Rev, Francis Hawley, 118. . . 
Dr. W. S. Plummer, 164. . .Rev. Mr. Smith, of Sumpter county, Ala. 
164. . .Talleyrand, 423. . . Jahn, 412, 455. . ..Prof. Stuart, 456. . ..Dr. 
Woods, 457. . .Dr. C. E. Stowe, 468. 



MR. RICE'S SPEECHES. 

Abhorrent principles of abolitionists 37, 38, 219, 213 

Abolition principles have not abolished slavery. . .155, 156, 157, 253 

Abolitionists not called to slave States 255 

American Board of Foreign Missions — report and opinions. ..439, 443 

Answer to araunicnt from one-bloodism, «fcc 125 

Answer to Mr. Blanchard's second argument, slave- 
holding kidnapping 190, 193, 342, 369 

Answer to Mr. Blanchard's third argument 19.3, (97 

Apostles admitted slave-holders into church. .378, 389,407, 449, 451 

Apostles never charged with abolitionism 259 

Baptism of infant slaves 256 

Blanchard's representation 25 

Blanchard unwilling to carry out his principles 52, 53, 370, 372 

Blanchard''s reply to second argument exposed 100, 282 

Blanchard's statement concerning Rev. Mr. 

Nourse, disproved 101,102,10.3, 129 

Blanchard's replv to third argument exposed 183, 186 

Blanchard's admission 189 

Blanchard's reasons for not quoting the Bible 248, 249 

Blanchani's denunciation and pity; Scott, «St.c 322,323,324 

Blancliard's contempt of German critics .340 

Blanchard's written answers to several arguments 367 

Blanchard's reply to Rice's last argument considered 371 

Blanchard's argument on coldcn rule -37 1, 373 

Blanchard makes law of God contradictors' 447, 443 

Blanchard's argument founded on two false assumptions 45-2 

Blanchard's statement concerning eexton of Danville church, 75,281 

Blanchard's statement concerning Rev. J. C. Stiles 76, 155, 187 

Blanchard's law of Gen. Assembly, and Rev. J. 

D. Paxton 77, 98, 99, 12(5, 127 

Blanchard objects to going to Hebrew and Greek 249, 250, 333 

Blanchard differs from Paul about relation of master 

and slave 310, 31 1 

Bible is Rice's " beaten track" 250, 251 

Biblical Repository 157 

Consequence of slave-holding in itself sinful 33 

Condition of slaves not getting worse 55, 5'3 

Condition of slaves improving 58, 127, 128 

Conyention at Detroit 194 



INDEX — ^MR. rice's SPEECHES. Vli 

Constantine confirms manumission .251 

Condition of negroes in free States 251, 2;»2 

1 Cor. vii. 21; misrepresentation 287 

Classes of servants among Hebrews 265, 266 

Canaanites under curse, therefore slaves. . 341 

Constaniine's laws concerning marriage of s'aves 370 

Commentators and critics of timid minds — Gro- 

tius, Engles, Breckenridge •_ 375, 376 

Commentators and critics 435, 439, 443, 481 

Contradictions of abolitionists 440 

Character of primitive Christians — reply to Blanchard 473 

Constitution of Christian Church— reply to Blanchard 472 

Cruel laws and cruel treatment don't prove rela- 
tion sinful 26, 27, 79, 80, 102, 124, 136, 137, 152, 153, 313, 314 

Cruelty not essential 

to slavery 27, 28, 53, 54, 57, 100, 101, 129, 130, 142, 153 

Debate — its origin 24, 337 

Debate adjourned to Monday 31 1 

Dr. Bishop's difficulties in teaching slaves 128 

Direct argument for abolitionism not Bible argument 210, 21 1 

Dr. Chalmer's views 240, 241, 242 

Dr. Cunningham 240, 242, 243, 248, 324, 325, 339, 344 

Dr. Clarke quoted 333, 436, 470 

Edinburg witness; slander 129, 130 

Elder in Kentucky 83 

Feelings of slaves toward masters — anecdote 445 

First argument against abolitionism 36, 37 

Fifth argument against abolitionism 107, 197, 198 

Forever — six years 41)4 

Fourth argument — golden rule 86, 89, 105, 106 

Final recapitulation 452, 475, 482 

Free Church of Scotland, and Presb. Ch. in U. S. A 242, 281 

Fugitive slaves, and abolitionists; advice 286, 369 

God never gave permission to sin 259, 434 

Great and good men misled by Paley 374 

Gen. xvii, 12, 13, and xx, 14, and xxiv, 35 262, 263 

Humane feelings towards slaves in slave Stales 133 

Hundred men on island 2IG 

Hebrew slavery of six years 2s8 

Haaar a slave 2C0, 2G2, 2S9 

Hebrews bought wives — meaning of bought 266, 343 

Hebrew bond-servants and apprentices 403, 404 

Increase of slave gangs accounted for 28,29 

Ignatius 1**^ 

Importance of the subject admitted 34 

Immediate emancipation of doubtful advantage 81, 82, 215, 216 

Jews whose fathers killed prophets 373 

Jewish sheiks and clansmen 401 

Kingdom of God righteousness, &-c 188 

Law of Presb. Church concerning treatment of slaves 29, 141 

Law for stranger among Jews 448 

Laws of Moses tended to liberty 448 

Levit. XXV. 39 " 264 

Lexington and C. M. Clay. 284, 285, 2dG 



Vlii INDEX — MR. rice's SPEECHES. 

Looked through slave spectacles 374 

Marriage of slaves 

truly valid 35, 54, 55, 74, 75, 189, 193, 213, 214, 313, 314, 370 

Master and slave not on equality with husband and wife, 6i,c. 26, 56 

Meaning of eied 2o7, 23 J, 2J1, 218, ^44, 378, 406, 407 443 

Most unpleasant feature of abolitionism 470, 471 

Negro murdered in Indianapolis 133 

Note appended to Confession of Faith 451 

Number of negroes in church 401 

Opinion of Drs. GritUn and Spring concerning abolitionism 58 

Our translation of Bible and word servant 344, 377 

Paley's definition of slavery 32 

Permission to Jews not justify slave-trading 342 

Perpetuity of servitude among Jews 376 

Position of Methodist Church 400 

Prejudice from difTcrent complexion not in Rome 283 

Professor Siovve's admission 60 

Protection of slaves in Kentucky 76, 99, 100, 134, 135, 154 

Protection of bondmen of Hebrews and of slaves 402 

Question fully stated 25, 32, 81, 82, 83, 84 

Reason for opposing abolitionism 34, 41 

Reason why permission granted Jews to hold slaves SH 

Reasonable time ; admission 256 

Rccapitalation of arguments 84, 85, 86, 157, 161 

Recapitulation of Blaiichard's speeches 103, 104 

Reply of abolitionists to argument for Jewish slavery 319, 3i^2 

Report of Gen. Assembly of 1845 193, 195,212, 243,283, 284 

Request all to hear Blanchard 280 

Result of abolition principles in the South 33 

Rev. David Rice's views 131, 1 .'J2 

Pcev. Mr. Graham 2.52 

Rice's position concerning Jewish servitude not equivocal. 373 

Rice's definition of slavery 33 

Rice opposed to slavery— in favor of colonization. .33-4, 195-6, 251-2 

Rice's doctrine and the South 243, 315, 338 

Rice opposed to violence ; freedom of press , 287 

Second argument against abolitionism 39, 40, 50-52 

Servants not property holders 405, 444, 470 

Sixth argument against abolitionism 199, 217, 218 

Slave laws of Jews 401 

Slave ''mine'>'> 216, 403 

Slaves liberated by legislatures , 215 

Slavery abolished in New York, &c; 481 

Slavery permitted among patriarchs and Jews 259, 263, 317 

Slave-holding hinders millenium 315, 316, 337, 433 

Speculating in human beings condemned .28. 56 

Statement concerning Dr. Baxter noticed 188 

Stealincr in Sparta 198 

Synod of Kentucky 131 

Third argument against abolitionism 59, 60 

Wages; hired servant and slave 472, 473 

Wesley's directions to missionaries to West Indies 400 

West India emancipation 253, 255, 288, 289 

Whofcthall be master? 311,313 



DEBATE. 



[MR. BLANCHARd's OPENING ADDRESS.] 

"Wednesday, 2 o'clock, P. M. 
Gentlemen Moderators^ Gentlemen and Ladies^ Fellow Cit- 
izens: 

The question which we are to-day met to discuss, to my 
own mind, borrows a melancholy interest from the slave- 
cofiies which, in increasing numbers, are passing from the 
upper to the lower slave-country at this time. Three days 
since, sixty-four men chained together and separated from 
their wives and daughters, passed by our city on their way 
to the South. 

While we are debating and you are listening, anxious to 
know the truth on this important practical question, the 
slave-pens of a sister city, Louisville, are increasing their 
number and enlarging their dimensions, to receive slaves 
brought in from the upper country to send to the lower 
states for sale. This infernal traffic has been stimulated by 
the late movements in Lexington against the property and 
person of Cassius M. Clay; and by the kidnapping of white 
men on the borders of the State of Ohio, and a practical re- 
fusal of bail ; by which they now lie in prison in a sister 
State. 

That human beings should be now suffering such inhu- 
man usage in our midst, gives, in my mind, a painful inter- 
est to this debate ; and must, I think, produce a tender and 



10 DISCUSSION 

melancholy sentiment in the breast of all who hear it, inde- 
pendent of the points in dispute. 

The question, however, must he considered and decided 
upon general principles, independent of, though it cannot be 
separated from, contemporaneous events. It ought therefore 
to be set forth with great distinctness, to enable us to appre- 
hend clearly and fully the bearings of the argument. It is 
this, "/s slave-holding in itself sinful, and the relation he- 
iween master and slave a sinful relation? 

To explain and set this question distinctly before you, I 
observe that, so far as I know, all well informed persons, be- 
lievers in Christianity, hold, that there are two classes of 
human practices, as it respects church-discipline — one class, 
right, the other wrong : practices which ought, and practi- 
ces which ought not to be received by the church into fellow- 
ship. We hold communion with persons engaged in the 
various vocations of life. If a man is a farmer and tills 
the soil, we commune with him. If he is a blacksmith, 
we commune with him. If he is engaged in trade, and con- 
ducts his business honestly and uprightly, we commune with 
jiim — ^because those vocations arc good and right. But there 
are on the other hand, practices, such as smuggling, swindling, 
gambling, selling lottery tickets, &c., with which we hold 
no fellowship, but which ought to be met and questioned at 
the threshold of the church. Now the naked question be- 
fore us to-day, and for the three following days, is, to which 
class of human practices does the holding of human beings 
as property belong? Ought the church to object to it?— is 
it wrong, or is it right ? 

Again, there are two classes of human relations ; right re- 
lations, and wrong. Marriage, the Eden relation of life, 
we hold to be a right relation. It is the central source of 
lio-ht and warmth, intelligence and affection, to every branch 
and department of human affairs. It is a right institution — 
because it is God-appointed. It is universally recognized as 
right, and its solemnization every where marked by feasts 
and rejoicings. Over against this is another relation — the 



ON SLAVERY. 11 

relation of false marriage or concubinage. This is a wrong 
relation. It is forbidden by scripture, and justifies its 
condemnation by the common sense of mankind, by the 
evils which it brings in its train. So there are right and 
•wrong business relations. The relation of partners in a le- 
gitimate trade is a just and useful relation — founded on a 
right principle, that of the mutual dependence of men. 

" God builds on wants and on defects of mind, 
The glory, peace and virtue of mankind." 

But there is also a false relation in business — such as that 
between smugglers, or that of the anti-social conspiracy, 
formed by men who are banded together to burn our cities, 
and, by general disorganization, to bring down society to 
their own level. 

I will not detain you by speciffying other human rela- 
tions. The point before us is ; Is the relation between the 
master and his slave, just or unjust? Is it a holy or a sin- 
ful relation? 

Since this debate was announced, fears have been express- 
sed by certain public prints that no real issue will be made 
by the disputants, but that the whole question will be made 
to turn upon extreme cases : — for there are extreme cases, 
even in morals. But such fears may safely be dismissed. 
For by a glance at the printed pamphlet wliich I hold in 
my hand, and which has been issued by my respected friend, 
since this discussion was proposed, — and, being an argu- 
ment on one side of the question, has thus become a part of 
the debate, — you will see that the gentleman opposed to me 
has no disposition to skulk behind extreme cases. He, as 
Kentuckians are wont to do, will come square up to the 
point in discussion, whether slave-holdirig — American slave- 
holding — or slave-holding in every nation, is sinful or not ! 
From the free quotations, which, in this pamphlet, he makes 
from the actual slave code of the country, you will see that 
we have not invited j-ou to a feast of moral principles to 
serve you with the scraps ; — to consume your time and our 
strength, haggling supposed cases of slave-holding; and 



12 DISCUSSION 

amusing you with tricks of logic and special pleading — the 
mere gim-cracks of argument. 

The question is whether slave-holding, as jjracticed by 
Americans, Englishmen, Romans or Greeks ; — whether 
SLAVE-HOLDING ! is siuful ] and the relation which it creates 
and which exists between master and slave is a sinful relation ? 

Gentlemen ; every man wishes there may be a pure Chris- 
tianity. When Ethan Allen's daughter was dying, she 
asked her father whether she should believe what he had 
taught her, or believe her mother ? Though a skeptic him- 
self, he bade her believe her mother ; and whether we are 
professors of religion or not, we all wish there may be on 
earth, one holy and unspotted shrine — a pure religion where 
the heart may worship while the mind approves. 

Now, the question is, whether Humanity can look to 
Christianity and find protection ? Whether the oppressed 
can flee to the sanctuary of the Gospel of Christ and find a 
refuge there — or whether religion affords no protection to 
human rights ? In other words, whether the religion we 
profess is a humane or an inhuman religion ? 

The number of persons now held as slaves under nomi- 
nally Christian governments is not quite seven millions. 
This is exclusive of the serfs of Europe who have legal 
existence and so?ne rights. And as long as a human crea- 
ture has ojie human right legally made secure, he is not, he 
cannot be, a slave. These seven millions of human beings 
— these slaves, touching whom we are met to hold colloquy, 
are in the United States and in Texas : the South Ameri- 
can States, and in French, Spanish, Danish, Swedish and 
Dutch colonies of the West Indies. 

Our Southern States and the Brazils together, contain 
5,000,000, more than five sevenths of all the slaves in 
Christendom. Now, these seven millions of human beings 
are citizens of no country. They are neither Americans, 
French, Danish, Dutch, Spaniards, or Swedes; neither are 
they found in families. I know that in the skirts of the 
system, i. e. in the slave -raising States, there exists a some- 



ON feLAVEIlY. 13 

thing called families ; but in the staple-growing plantations, 
for the supply of which slave-holding exists ; and which are 
the market to which it tends ; they are not in families ; but 
they are illegitimate in their birth and in their death. — 
Their children are born out of lawful wedlock, and, dy- 
ing, they can make no wills. Nor can their children receive 
what is willed to them. It is common for them to have no 
patronymics, but, like dogs and horses, to be called by single 
names. 

Their condition is legally one and the same, with slight 
modifications, in all the countries where they are found ; and 
it has remained the same from age to age. It is a condition 
clearly and well defined. They are held by individuals, as 
individual property, for individual uses. They are all held 
by one and the same property tenure, and ruled by the same 
property power — that is, (and there can be no worse word,) 
they are slaves! 

Now, gentlemen, we are met upon the question, whether 
the holding of men and women, under this relation and in 
this condition, is a right or a wrong practice ; whether the 
relation subsisting between the owner and the owned is right 
or wrong. 

I propose here to advance certain considerations to show 
the vast personal interest which every one has in the subject 
under debate. 

In the first place, it concerns seven millions of human 
creatures, born to all the hopes and fears to which we our- 
selves are born. It is precisely that class in whom Jesus 
Christ, the Son of God, did, while on earth, and does now, 
(for his disposition is unchanged,) take the deepest interest. 
For surely the lowest and most oppressed conditions of man- 
kind received his most tender regards. For Christians, 
therefore, no question can be raised more fit to occupy their 
attention than this. But it equally concerns all others. 

Every person, present and absent, has a personal and deep 
stake in the decision of this question. For all wish a pure 
Christianity ; and all see that when they have convinced the 



14 Discussion 

people of the United States that there is no protection in 
Christianity for human rights, they will have taught them 
that we have an inhuman religion. 

If we have no protection for our rights and liberties in 
tlie Gospel of Christ, then we have no protection for them 
except party politics, and all can see, nay, have already seen, 
what such protection must come to. 

In 1776, there was no sentiment so popular, North, South, 
East, and West, as that " God hath created all men free 
and equal." This sentiment, at the beginning of our na- 
tional history, was taken in charge by political parties who 
vied with each other in its praises. Now, leading statesmen 
and public prints deny its truth, and ridicule it as a " rheto- 
rical flourish." 

: The fact is, this fundamental idea of the American De- 
claration, has been running down for the last fifty years.— 
The last citadel of human rights is Christianity. If there 
is no protection, no refuge there, for the principles on which 
liberty is based, there is none anywhere. As a nation, as in- 
dividuals, we have no protection. But we have all a pecii^ 
niary interest in this question. It was well remarked by 
Joshua Leavitt, the able and experienced editor of a week- 
ly and daily paper, that the United States free population 
sustain the relation of conquered subjects to our 250,000 
slave-holders, the same relation that a conquered people do 
to their conquerers. That, in short, the free States are gov- 
erned for the benefit of the slave-holders. The truth of 
this is clearly set forth in a late article of Dr. Bailey's, in the 
Morning Herald, of this city. 

Speaking of the slave-holders' demands, he says : 

" We must allow these men a representation for their 
slaves ; we must be called upon to stand guard over their 
runaway slaves ; we are expected to aid them in keeping 
down their discontented slaves ; we must expend forty mill- 
ions of the Nation's treasure in breaking up a haunt in Flor- 
ida for fugitive slaves ; we must tolerate a monopoly of ofTi- 
ces under the General Government by Southern men, because 



ON SLAVERY. 15 

they have slaves ; we must sully the reputation and hazard 
the peace of the Union, in demands for compensation for 
shipwrecked slaves ; we must suffer the national legislation 
to be so shaped as, without any regard to the interests of 
freemen, to enhance the value of the labor of slaves ; we 
must violate all the compromises of the Constitution, and 
hazard the chances of a most wasteful, most disgraceful war 
with Mexico, for the sake of enlarging the area for slaves :" — - 
and I will venture to add to this delineation ; We must pay 
from the nations' revenue hundreds of thousands every year 
to carry the mail for slave-holders' accommodation. We 
must behold the District of Columbia, the seat of our na- 
tional government, become a national slave-mart — the chief 
slave-mart of Christendom — and our national jails made 
national slave-pens, built and kept up at the national expense 
— so that every citizen at his anvil or loom — every man that 
labors in his shop or on the soil, stoops at his toil beneath 
the double load of personal labor and national disgrace : so 
that every person who pays a tax, or casts a vote, or serves 
in the army or navy, or buys a yard of ribbon, or consumes 
any other dutiable article, or writes or receives a letter ; 
every one in short who has a body to feed and clothe, or a 
soul to suffer disgrace ; every American who has either prop- 
erty or character, or the hope of either, is directly and 
personally concerned with American slavery : for every such 
person is taxed for its support. 

Again. The rapid increase of the slave population makes 
the slave question a matter of personal concern to all. 

In 1790 there were in the United States 697,697 slaves : 
at the last census there were 2,483,436. At the present time 
the number is above, 3,000,000 ; or one sixth part of the whole 
population of the United States. Moreover, while the free 
population increases 1 per cent., the slave population in- 
creases 3 per cent. — the circumstances being equal, and ex- 
clusive of emigration. It is obvious from this fact, that 
slavery is fast out-growing its bands. The slaves are the ma- 
jority in two of the States already. These facts speak so 



16 DISCUSSION 

eloquenlly that they need not be enforced by argument. If 
you hold your homes dear, you must consider, and ere long 
you will consider this question of slavery. 

To us wlio live upon *' the land lying between Pennsylva- 
nia on the East, Mississippi River on the West, and the 
Lakes on the North ; i. e. in the territory north west of the Ohio 
River," no question can be more interesting than this now 
in debate. By the ordinance of 1787, July 13th, sixth ar- 
ticle — " There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary ser' 
vitude intlie said territory otherwise than for crimes, where- 
of the party shall have been duly convicted." No soil on 
earth was ever so committed and pledged to liberty as this. 
In the language of Webster ; tliis ordinance " lies lower dian 
the local constitution" itself. Now the question is, whether 
the churches within this territory shall receive into fellow- 
ship as not sinful, a practice, which the States themselves 
have barred out as a crime 1 

If slave-holding be not sinful, then that is no sin in 
the church which the State, in self protection, has agreed to 
treat as a crime. Can we debate out from under us the 
foundation of our social fabric? The ordinance of 1787 is 
the very root of all the institutions of Ohio, Indiana, and Illi- 
nois, from which they derive all their sap and vigor. To de- 
stroy it would be to destroy the titles of the people to their 
houses and farms. They hold their property by force of the 
territorial rights acquired anderthe ordinance of 1787. And 
if my brother succeeds in convincing the people that the car- 
dinal principle of that ordinance is an error, he will achieve 
a ruin more dreadful than if he should strike out the under- 
pinning of our houses and let them tumble to the earth. It 
would be a small evil to throw down our dwellings, compared 
to the terrible calamity whicli must result from destroying 
the first principle- and vital source of all the laws by which 
our houses and our persons are protected. 

Fellow citizens, we must bear in mind that we are not 
met to discuss the slavery of the negro, but the slavery of 
'ma7i. The practical question we have before us is, whether 



ON SLAVERY. 17 

slave-holding is s'mM. Not whether American slave-hold- 
ing alone is sinful. If we establish the doctrine that it is not 
sinful to hold slaves, then we shall commit no sin, if, at some 
future period, one portion of us shall drive the daughters of 
the otlier portion into the kitchen, and their sons into the 
field. We are discussing our own right to freedom, and the 
right of others to enslave us and our posterity. If any one 
thinks that the question now before us applies only to the 
African race, let him be reminded that white slaves have been 
no rarity in the history of mankind. Thousands of our Eno-- 
lish ancestors have been sold into slavery. Mr. Pitt, quoting 
Henry's History of Great Britain, has this passage, " Great 
numbers were exported like catde, and were to be seen ex- 
posed for sale in the Roman market." 

Before the CongTess of European Sovereigns at Vienna 
and Aix-la-Chapelle, there were 49,000 white slaves in the 
Barbary States alone. Moreover, those who prove slavery 
to be sinless, prove it from the Bible — and the argument, if 
it proves anything, justifies the slavery of white people as 
well as black. For the bond-men of the Scriptures, from 
which they draw their arguments, were colored like their 
masters. The Bible knows nothing of determining men's 
rights by the hue of iheir skin. (A voice. — Good.) 

No, Gentlemen : No, fellow citizens ! When he proves 
from the Bible that slave-holding is not sinful, he has justi- 
fied the men who, at some future day shall hold my child, 
and the children of other poor men, in slavery. If any one 
still supposes that white children cannot be enslaved, let him 
look at the case of Mary Elmore in Philadelphia, the child 
of Irish parents, who was taken when eight years old, and 
sworn to by eight men as the property of the man who seiz- 
ed her, and would have been dragged into hopeless slavery 
but for the interposition of God in raising up friends who 
proved her free-born. 

Read also the case of Sally MuUer, lately freed from slavery 
in New-Orleans: — a German girl, who was held and treated 



18 DISCUSSION 

as a slave for twenty-five years, and was at last accidentally 
discovered by a woman who was an acquaintance of her 
parents, and was thus providentially restored to liberty. Ma- 
ny of you knew of the case of a woman upwards of 50 years 
of age, who landed in our city several years ago, from the 
South, on her way to Frederick County, Maryland, where 
she obtained documents under the county seal, proving her- 
self free. She was a white woman. Her father was a 
Spaniard and her mother a German. There was no trace 
of African blood in her veins — yet she had been held as a 
slave in the Southern States for forty years, and all her chil- 
dren were in slavery. And if whites are thus enslaved un- 
der laws professing to enslave only the colored race, what 
would be done could my brother establish, ais sinless, the 
slavery of man irrespective of color. 

As we determine this question, as a nation, so it is the 
appointment of God to determine it for us and our children. 
As we measure unto others, so will it be meted unto us. 

I propose now to consider, somewhat at length, the hinge- 
point of this whole discussion, viz : — slave-holding and the 
slavery relation. 

And, Fellow Citizens, if you find the discussion some- 
what dry, I must beg you will pardon me in advance; For 
there has been so much misapprehension, (I will not say 
intentional misrepresentation,) that some pains and patience 
are requisite, to strip the subject of false glosses and set the 
actual verities, slavery and slave-holding, distinctly before us. 

It is not my intention to invent a definition of slavery 
from which to reason, but to bring you to the thing itself, 
the living fact, — the actual reality as it exists. In a late 
published discussion of this subject, by two eminent Baptist 
ministers, my soul was pained to observe that the whole 
truth respecting slavery was compromilted, and the whole 
subject itself confused and darkened, by the admission of Dr. 
Paley's definition of slavery as the basis of their argument. 
No moral philosopher's definition is fit to be used in the 



ON SLAVERY. 19 

discussion of practical questions, without first "ascertaining 
wiiether it represents the thing defined — the living- fact as 
it is. 

Dr. Paley's definition of slavery — "an obligation to labor 
for the master without the contract or consent of the slave," 
is most obviously and fatally erroneous. For, in morals, as 
in mathematics, "it is essential to a perfect definition that it 
distinguish the thing defined from every thing else" — which 
Paley's definition by no means does. It makes slavery, 
nothing but forced labor, or labor without " contract or con- 
sent." Such is the labor required of paupers, of convicts, 
of the sheriff's posse, of impressed men in national peril, 
and even of children during minority. These all labor 
without their "contract or consent." And to give a defini- 
tion of slavery which includes all these, is scarcely short of 
absurd. It is certainly erroneous. If slavery is only forced 
labor, then the paupers who labor in the poor-house are 
slaves. But the pauper asks for bread, and society asks for 
a consideration in the shape of labor, which is a just 
demanb. We set beggars to work, because idleness is a 
crime. Is that slavery? The person of a pauper is as 
sacred as yours or mine — and he is no more a slave. The 
State does not compel him to be a pauper. But if he comes 
to the community and demands bread, the community has a 
right to require his labor without his "contract or consent." 
So in case of the other kinds of labor named above. Neither 
the sheriff, the press-gang, the prison-warden, nor even the 
parent, wait for "contract and consent" when they require 
labor. And as Paley's definition includes all these, it is 
obviously false. For that which does not distinguish a 
thing from other different things, is surely no definition of 
it. No wonder that, with such a definition, Dr. Wayland 
should concede slave-holding to be not sinful. 

But there is a still stronger objection to Paley's definition. 
It leaves out the whole relation between the owner and 
his slave, and defines only one of the incidents of slavery, 
to wit : the compulsory labor of the slave. Slaves are slaves, 



20 DISCUSSION 

work or no work. Mark how the very terms of the defini- 
tion show its absurdity. He says — " slavery is an obligation 
to work for the master without the contract or consent of the 
slave." The very terms show that the master is a master, 
and the slave a slave, before the " forced labor " begins. 
Now that which makes the master a master, and the slave a 
slave; that is slavery — that is the property-holding power — 
the ownership of mankind. He who ovvns a slave, owns a 
ma?i. He who sells him, sells a man. He sells not only his 
flesh and blood, but he sells his good qualities. If he has a 
good disposition or any good quality or superior talent, the 
auctioneer is sure to tell of it while he is under the hammer, 
and this enhances the price. Yes, he sells the soul of the 
man. If a man owns a plough and a horse, these will not 
furrow his field. He wants an intellect to guide the plough 
and direct the horse, and for this purpose he buys a slave. 
In buying him, he knows that he is buying the soul of the 
man. Dr. Paley's definition goes no farther than to give 
the master a right to the services of the slave. It puts one 
incident of slavery for slavery itself, and makes one right 
of the owner to be the whole of ownership — one spoke in 
this wheel of torture, the whole infernal machine. 

To illustrate the absurdity of this definition, suppose a 
slaveholder, robber, and murderer, on trial, and Dr. Way- 
land employed in their defence. He stands up to address 
the Court; solemnly adjusts his wig and gown, takes a 
volume of Paley, or some other learned doctor, from be- 
neath his arm, and reads the following definitions : " I do- 
fine slavery to be an obligation to labor for the benefit of the 
master without the contract or consent of the servant." — 
(Paley, B. 3. C. 2.) " Robbery, I define to be an obligation 
to relinquish property to the plunderer without the contract 
or consent of the plundered ;" "and I define murder to be an 
otiio"ation to yield up life to the murderer, without the con- 
tract or consent of the victim." Where, I ask, is the difference 
inXhe merit of these three definitions ? and what but a smile 
of compassionate contempt would such definitions excite, in. 



ON SLAVERY. 21 

any court of justice where grave practical questions, like the 
one Ave are now discussing, were being tried ? 

Let us turn now from these pigeon-hole definitions, to 
those who have described slavery as a simple reality — a 
living fact. In introducing the following quotations, I have 
two objects in view: 1. to show that slavery and slave-hold- 
ing are the same all the world over ; and 2. to show what 
slavery is — to show that those who speak of different kinds 
of slavery — who suppose that one kind of slavery existed in 
the times of Moses, and another in our own times, are in er- 
ror ; I wish to show that there is but one kind of slavery — 
the property holding of men. My brother will tell you that, 
in Roman slavery, the master had the life of the slave in his 
power. This is a small item in the condition of a slave^ and 
it was rather a custom than a law. It did not exist after the 
time of Antoninus Pius, in the second century. It was 
abolished by the Cornelian law ; and was no part of the 
civil law of which Justinian was the founder and father, and 
which is never spoken of in the courts as dating back of 
the code of Justinian, A. D. 527. The Roman civil law 
first hardened slavery into a regular slave code, and the 
point I make, is, that nowhere on earth, has legal slavery 
been any thing else but what it is to-day among us. It may 
differ slightly in its incidents, in different ages ; but it is by 
no means certain that Roman masters were worse than 
American. Corrupt Christians are not necessarily merciful 
men. But however kind or Christian the master, the slave 
is property, and follows the laws of property. This condi- 
tion is a legal identity the v/orld over, and the tie which binds 
him to it the same. 

So was it among the ancient Greeks. Aristotle says, 
"with Barbarians the family consists of male and female 
slaves, but to the Greeks belongs dominion over the Barba- 
rians, because the former have the understanding requisite to 
rule : the latter, the body only to obey." He calls the slave a 
"living instrument in the hands of the master: as the instru- 
ment is an inanimate slave." That is slavery! I trust we 



22 DISCUSSION 

shall become familiar with this ground idea. For in defin- 
ing a slave of his own days, Aristode has exacdy depicted 
the slavery of the present. The "Barbarians," thus declar- 
ed by this leading and most influential mind of antiquity to 
be slaves by nature, included all the ancestors of the present 
American people, viz : the ancient Germans, Danes, Anglo- 
Saxons, Britons, Picts and Scots. And the principle of the 
Greek slave code was precisely the same with that of Amer- 
ican slavery, viz: the jp roper ty-holding of men. The slaves 
were "living instruments" in the hands of their masters. 

These "Barbarians" however, in spite of the opinion of 
Aristotle, show themselves as capable as Greeks of holding 
slaves. I quote from Gibbon. "The Goth, the Burgundian, 
or the Frank who returned from a successful expedition, 
dragged after him a long train of sheep, oxen, and human 
captives. The youths of an elegant form were set apart for 
domestic service. The useful mechanics and servants em- 
ployed their skill for the use or profit of their masters." 
That is, they were property ^ subject to the incidents of prop- 
erty. 

Perhaps the Komans were the first who rigidly legalized 
and defined slavery. And as the Apostles planted churches 
under Roman law, and as American slavery, after European, 
h'As taken its ground idea and leading feature from the Ro- 
man civil code, it is necessary to enlarge a litde upon Ro- 
man slavery. 

"From the time of Augustus to Justinian," says a careful 
modern writer (Prof. Edwards), "we may allow three slaves 
to one freeman : we shall thus have a free population in 
Italy of 6,944,000 : and of slaves 20,832,000. Total, 27,- 
766,000." 

The state and condition of these slaves is thus laid down 
by Dulany, a legal authority of Maryland : — 

"By the (Roman) civil law, slaves were esteemed merely 
as the chattels of their masters : they had no name but what 
the master was pleased to give them for convenience. They 
were not capable of personal injuries cognizable by the law. 



ON SLAVERY. 23 

Tliey coultTtake neither by purchase nor descent, could have 
no heirs, could make no will. The fruits of their labor and 
industry belonged to their masters. They could not plead 
nor be impleaded, and were utterly excluded from all civil 
concerns. They were incapable of marriage, not being 
entitled to the considerations thereof The laws of adultery 
did not (among themselves) affect them. They might be 
sold, transferred, mortgaged, pawned. Partus sequitur ven- 
trcrn, was the rule indiscriminately applied to slaves and cat- 
tle. And this too, was not only the civil law, but the law 
of nations. Nostri servi swat qui ex nostris anciUis na- 
scuntur; and so was their incapacity of marriage on the 
principle above explained." — I.Harris and 3IcIIenry,5Ql. 

This statement, easily verified by reference to the Roman 
code itself, shows clearly the following facts : — 

•That Roman slavery was a practical and deliberate 
placing of human beings in the legal and social condition of 
the brute creation. Nothing can be added to the provisions 
of this code to herd human beings with brutes. It is not pos- 
sible to make them brutes, because they are men — but what 
human skill, armed with power, can do, is here done to dishu- 
Rianize and imbrute human beings. 

The Roman slave code, as you all see, was a complete re- 
peal of all God's laws regulating human society. In obeying 
God, it was neccessary to violate tlie slave-code : — and he 
who obeyed the slave-code trampled upon God's law. Is 
slave-holding sinful ? 

See how perfectly the American and Roman slave systems 
coincide ; — I read from the same authority who is contrast- 
ing English villeinage with slavery : — 

"Villeins were capable of marriage because capable of the 
civil rights annexed to it by the laws of England, and the in- 
variable principle of these laws being, that the issue should 
follow the state and condition of the father. If a villein took 
a free woman to wife, their issue were villeins. If a free 
man took a neif to wife, their iss-ue were free. Slaves were 
incapable of marriage by the civil law, because incapable of 



24 DISCUSSION 

the civil rights annexed to it. And the rule of that law was 
that the issue a female slave, sliould follow the state and 
condition of the mother." — 1. Harris and McHenrt/^-p. 560. 

The serfdom, of Europe, was the lowest condition of 
human beings in civil society. Yet how infinitely below 
the serf of Europe is the slave! Yet this is Roman, Eng- 
lish and American law. There is a case reported in Mary- 
land, (Harris and McHenry,) where a testator died, and, by 
his will, freed his slaves and bequeathed them property. 
The question in court was, as they were slaves at the time 
of his death, could they take under the will? It was deci- 
ded they could not, and the property bequeathed to them 
escheated to the State. This establishes the point that the 
Roman code and the American code are identical and the 
slave-condition the same. 

I request you to bear in mind just where this discussion 
pauses. I will continue from this point. [^Time expired. 



l^MR. rice's first SPEECH.] 

By the correspondence which has been read in your 
hearing, you have learned the origin of this debate. It did 
not originate with me. I had no desire whatever to engage 
in a public discussion of the claims of abolitionism ; yet 
should the discussion of this agitating question be properly 
conducted, much good, I doubt not, will result. Multitudes 
of well meaning and intelligent persons who as yet have 
formed no definite opinion, need and desire information on 
the subject ; and surely it is not the true interest of any to 
believe that which is false, especially on a subject of so 
much practical importance. True, we are often told, espe- 
cially by political editors, that public discussions of moral 
and religious subjects, convince no one ; and yet none are 
more clamorous than they in favor of political discussions. 
By what process of reasoning they reach the conclusion that 
the truth is gainer by the discussion of political questions, 



ON SLAVERY. 25 

but not of those of a moral and religious character, I leave 
them to determine. 

I am happy to meet Mr. Blanchard on the present occa- 
sion, not as an individual^ but as the chosen representative 
of the abolitionists of this city, selected by ten of their most 
respectable men. We have the right to conclude, that now 
full justice will be done to their cause ; that if the claims of 
abolitionism can be sustained, it will now be done. I rejoice 
that the debate, as published, will be circulated both in the 
slave-holding and in the free States — that now at length the 
abolitionists will have the opportunity of spreading their 
strongest arguments before the slave-holders, as well as be- 
fore the public generally. 

It is important that the audience keep distinctly before 
their minds the question we have met to discuss, to wit : Is 
slave-holding in itself sinful, and the relation between master 
and slave a sinful relation? I was truly surprised to hear 
the gentleman speak Joriy minutes without reaching the 
question, and twenty more without defining what he means 
by slave-holding ! I had expected to hear from a gentleman 
so longaccuslomed to discuss this subject, at least something 
in the way of argument, during the first hour, but it is passed, 
and the definition is not completed ! 

I am perfectly av\-are of the prejudices I must encounter 
in the minds of some of the audience, from the fact that I 
stand opposed, in this discussion, to those who claim to be 
par excellence the friends of liberty, and particularly of the 
slave. To remove such prejudices from the minds of the 
candid, I will state precisely the ground I intend to occupy ; 
and, if I mistake not, before this debate shall close, it will 
be considered at least a debateable question, whether the 
abolitionists are entitled to be considered the best friends of 
the slave. 

1. The question between us and the abolitionists, is not 
whether it is right to force a free man, charged with no 
crime, into slavery. The gentleman has indeed presented 
the subject in this light. He has told you, that I am about 



25 DISCUSSION 

to justify those who, at a future day, may enslave our chil- 
dren, ^uch, however, I need scarcely say, is not the fact. 
In the slave-holding, as well as in the free States, it is ad- 
irittcd and maintained, that to reduce a free man into a state 
of slavery, is a crime of the first magnitude. Far from de- 
fending the African slave trade, we abhor and denounce it 
as piracy. We, therefore, maintain, that American slavery 
ought never to have existed. But the slave-holding States 
have inherited this evil; and the important and difficult 
question now arises — how shall the evil be removed? The 
present owners of slaves did not reduce them to their pre- 
sent condition. They found them in a state of slavery; and 
the question to be solved is — how far are individuals bound, 
under existing circumstances, to restore them to freedom? 
For example, it w^ould be very wicked in me, whether by 
force or fraud, to reduce a rich man to poverty, but how far 
I am bound to enrich a man reduced to poverty by others, is 
a very different question. 

2. The question before us is not whether the particular laws 
by which slavery has been regulated in the countries where 
it has existed, are just and righteous. What has the pre- 
sent discussion to do with Aristotle's description of slavery, 
which the gentleman has given us ? Or what has it to do 
with the laws by which in the Roman empire slavery was 
regulated? Does the gentleman really expect me, in prov- 
ing that slave-holding is not in itself sinful, to defend the slave 
laws of Rome? It is impossible not to see, that those laws 
have nothing to do with the question he stands pledged to 
discuss. Still he entertains us with Aristotle's definition 
of slavery, and with Gibbon's account of slavery in the 
Roman empire. Many of those laws, it is readily admit- 
ted, were unjust and cruel in a high degree. But by the 
same kind of logic it would be easy to prove, that the con,' 
jugal and parental relations are in themselves sinful; / 
do not place the relation of master and slave on an equal 
footing with those relations; bvt I do maintain that the 
gtnilcman has no right to use an argument against the 



ON SLAVERY. 27 

former^ that icould bear with equal force against the latter. 
The Roman laws gave the father power over the life of his 
child, and the husband power to degrade and tyrannize over 
his wife ; and the same is true of almost all pagan countries. 
But shall we denounce the conjugal and parental relations 
as in themselves sinful, because they were regulated by bad 
laws? Those relations, we contend, arc lawful and right; 
but the particular laws by which in many countries they are 
regulated, are unjust. So the fact that many of the laws of 
Rome concerning slavery were cruel, does not prove, that 
the relation is in itself sinful. The gentleman's argument 
proves too much, and, therefore, according to an admitted 
principle of logic, proves nothing. 

Many of the laws by which in our country slavery is re- 
gulated are defective, and ought to be amended ; or unjust, 
and ought to be repealed. But are those laws essential to 
the relation between master and slave? They are not; for 
different laws have existed in different countries, whilst the 
relation itself has remained the same. Moreover, the laws 
in the same country or State have been materially different 
at different times. In Kentucky, for example, they have 
been gradually changed and improved; but the relation be- 
tween master and slave yet exists. They may be still fur- 
ther modified without affecting it. Indeed it is perfectly 
clear to the most superficial thinker, that the relation be- 
tween master and slave is not identical with the particular 
laws regulating it. The laws may be most unjust, and yet 
the relation may not be in itself sinful. 

3. The question is not w^hether masters may treat their 
servants cruelly, either by failing to give them abundant food 
and raiment, by inflicting cruel chastisement, by separating 
husbands and wives, parents and children, or by neglecting 
to give them religious instructions. A master, a father, or 
a husband, may be cruel. There is no relation in human 
society, that may not be abused by wicked men. But is the 
master obliged to treat his slaves cruelly? Must he of 
necessity starve them, or abuse them? Is he compelled, 



28 DISCUSSION 

because he is a master, to separate husbands and wives ? or 
to neo-lect their religious instruction, and leave their minds 
in pagan darkness ? No — he may treat them with all kind- 
ness, providing abundant food and raiment ; he may sacredly 
reo-ard the marriage relation amongst them; he may have 
them carefully instructed in the truths of the glorious gos- 
pel ; and yet he may sustain to them the relation of master. 

But the gentleman commenced his speech by telling us 
what a melancholy interest was thrown around this discus- 
sion by the fact, that a slave-gang recently passed near this 
city. Why not say, a melancholy interest is thrown around 
the marriage relation, because not a great while ago a man 
in Cincinnati murdered his wife and three children in a few 
moments ? Were I to employ my time in searching for 
them, I could furnish thousands of examples of inhuman 
cruelty in connection with the conjugal and parental rela- 
tions, in the free States, as well as elsewhere. Will the gen- 
tleman denounce these relations because they are abused % 
because wicked men take advantage of them to tyrannize 
over the weak ? True, cruelty is often found in connection 
with slavery; but it is equally true that many slave-holders 
treat their slaves with uniform kindness, as rational, account- 
able, immortal beings. We are not discussing the question 
whether cruelty of any kind is right. 

4. The question before us is not whether it is sinful to 
speculate in human beings. The slave-trader is looked 
upon by decent men in the slave-holding States with disgust. 
None but a monster could inflict anguish upon unoffending 
men for the sake of accumulating wealth. But since Mr. 
B. feels so deeply on account of the multiplication of slave- 
gangs in Kentucky, it may be well for him to know, that 
this is one of the sad effects of the doctrine and practice of 
the abolitionists. They have sought to make the slaves 
discontented in their condition ; they have succeeded in de- 
coying many from their masters, and running them to Can- 
ada. Consequently masters, for fear of losing their slaves, 
sell them to the hard-hearted trader ; and tl^ey are inarched 



ON SLAV'ERY. 29 

to the South. Thus they rivet the chains on the poor slave, 
and aggravate every evil attending his condition. Such is 
human nature, that men provoked by such a course of con- 
duct as that of the abolitionists, will, in many instances, resort 
to greater severity; and upon those who thus provoke men, 
rests in no small degree the responsibility of increasing the 
sufferings of the slaves. 

5. The question before us, is not whether it is right for a 
man to treat his slaves as mere chattels jpersonal^ not as senti- 
ent beings. The Scriptures condemn cruelty not only to- 
ward man, but toward irrational animals. "A righteous 
man regardeth the life of his beast." A man ought to be 
excluded from the church, who would treat his horse inliu- 
manl}'. Even the civil law would punish him for such cru- 
elty. Yet it is not a sin to own a horse. 

Christianity prescribes the duties of both masters and ser- 
vants. The servant is required to render obedience to his 
master with all fidelity " as unto Christ :" and the master is 
required to treat his slaves with all kindness, even as ration- 
al, accountable, immortal beings. Cruelty toward slaves, 
therefore, would prove the master destitute of piety, and 
would be a just ground for his exclusion from the privi- 
leges of the church. On this subject the law of the Pres- 
byterian church is clear and explicit. Sessions and Presby- 
teries were enjoined by the General Assembly of 1818, to 
prevent all cruelty in the treatment of servants; and to sub- 
ject those chargeable with it to the discipline of the church. 
Let the abolitionists prove, that any member of our church 
has been guilty of cruelty toward his slaves, and I pledge 
my word, he will be disciplined. Let it be tried, and if it 
be ascertained, that the Presbyterian church will not exclude 
men from her pale, who are guilty of such conduct, then I 
will denounce her. 

6. The question is not whether a great amount of sin is 
in fact committed in connection with slave-holding. This is 
admitted. Wicked men wall act out their wickedness in every 
relation in life. Wicked husbands in ten thousand instances 



30 DISCUSSION 

treat their wives most cruelly; and ungodly parents inflict 
great suffering on their children. No Wonder, then, that in this 
relation a great amount of sin is committed. But the ques- 
tion is not how much men can sin in this relation, but 
whether the relation is in itself sinful, whether a man is to 
be denounced as a heinous sinner, simply because he is a 
master. Abolitionists dwell upon, and magnify the sins of 
men committed in this relation ; but the relation may, and in 
multitudes of instances does exist without the oppression and 
cruelty of which they speak. Consequently the sin is not 
in the relation itself 

7. Nor is the question before us, whether slavery is an 
evil, a very great evil, which should be removed as speedily 
as it can be done by the operation of correct principles. 
This I cheerfully admit. But there are many evils and 
oreat evils in connection with human society, which cannot 
be immediately removed. Whilst, therefore, I admit that 
slavery is an evil, I utterly protest against upturning the 
very foundation of society in order to abolish it. Shall we 
do evil that good may come ? Nay — shall we in the mad 
attempt to remove immediately one evil introduce others a 
hundred-fold greater ? The question, I repeat, is not wheth- 
er slavery is an evil, but whether we are to denounce and 
excommunicate every individual who is so unfortunate as to 
be connected with it. 

8. The question before us does not relate to the duty or 
the policy of Kentucky or any other State concerning sla- 
A-ery. There is a broad distinction to be made between the 
duty of a State as a body politic, and the duty of individuals 
residing in the State. I might maintain, that it is the duty 
of the State of Kentucky immediately to adopt a plan of 
gradual emancipation, and yet contend, with perfect consis' 
tency, that so long as slavery is continued by the civil gov- 
ernment, individuals may own slaves without sinning. The 
duty of the State is one thing ; the duty of individuals quite an- 
other. Moreover, I might maintain what I firmly believe to 
be true — that slavery is a commercial evil in Kentucky, and 



ON SLAVERY. 31 

that her true policy would be to rid herself of it as soon as 
possible — without at all admitting, that every individual who 
sustains the relation of master, is a heinous sinner, 

9. In a word, we are not met to discuss the merits of 
any system of slavery^ Roman, Spanish, English, or Ameri- 
can. It is common now-a-days to declaim against "the sys- 
tem of American slavery." I confess myself unable to un- 
derstand precisely what is meant by this phrase. It is not 
at all clear to my mind, that there is any such thing as a 
system of American slavery. Slavery exists in several of 
these United States, regulated by different laws in the several 
States; but what is meant by the system, I do not know. 
I hope the gentleman, if he is disposed to employ the 
phrase, will clearly define it. But whatever it may mean, 
we have nothing whatever to do with it. The question be- 
fore us relates exclusively to individuals sustaining the rela- 
tion of masters and slaves. ♦ 

What, then, have we to do with Mr. Leavit's assertion that 
the free States have been governed for the benefit of the 
slave-holding States? Or what concern have we with Dr. 
Bailey's estimate of the taxes growing out of slavery? If we 
had undertaken to discuss the political bearings of slavery, 
these things might have been introduced with propriety ; but 
why have they been lugged into a discussion of the moral 
and religious character of the relation between master and 
slave ? The question stated by the challengers to this dis- 
cussion, and the question the gentleman stands pledged to 
debate, is — whether slave-holding is in itself sinful, and the 
relation between master and slave a sinful relation. This 
question and this only will I discuss. It presents fairly the 
great question at issue between us and the abolitionists. It 
is stated by Rev. Thomas E. Thomas, a prominent aboli- 
tionist, in the following language: ^'That question, now in 
process of investigation among the American churches, is 
this, and no other: Are the professed Christians in our re- 
spective connections, who hold their fellow-men as slaves, 
thereby guilty of a sin which demands the cognizance of the 



33 DISCUSSION 

church ; and after due admonition, the application of disci- 
pline ? " — Review of Junkin^ p. 17. 

Such precisely is the question. And here let us inquire, 
what is meant by slave-holding-? The gentleman told us, 
that in Wayland and Fuller's discussion, the truth was com- 
promised by adopting Paley's definition of slavery, viz: "An 
obligation on the part of the slave to labor for the master 
without consent or contract." To this definition Mr. Blanch- 
ard objects, — ^because, as he asserts, it does not distinguish 
slavery from other things. Paupers, for example, he told us, 
are obliged to labor ; so that according to Paley's definition 
paupers are slaves. This objection is wholly unfounded. 
Paupers are not forced to apply to the public for assistance. 
When they voluntarily do so, it is the right of the institu- 
tion to which they apply, to say on what terms they will 
grant the aid which is asked. The pauper acts voluntarily 
in asking aid, and he acts voluntarily in agreeing to comply 
with the conditions on which it is granted. Fie is not a 
slave, according to Paley's definition. 

The sherifl^'s posse, the gentleman told us, must also be 
slaves according to Paley, because the law compels them to 
serve at the call of the officer. This objection is no less 
futile, than the one just noticed. By becoming members 
of an organized society, each individual agrees to abide by 
the laws, and to lend his aid to enforce their observance ; in 
consideration of which he enjoys the protection of the la,ws 
and the advantages of society. 

But the gentleman tells us, that the master owns the maii^ 
not only the body but the soul, and that he sells the soul? 
What use, let me ask, does the master make, or what uso 
can he make of the slave, but to claim his labor — his servi- 
ces ? If there is anything necessarily included in slave-hold- 
ing, except the claim of one man to the services of another, 
will Mr. B. please inform us what it is? He has studied this 
subject for years with intense interest ; and therefore he is 
just the man to tell us what else there is in the relation be- 
tween master and slave. 



ON SLAVERY. 33 

By slave-holding, then, I understand the claim of the mas 
ter to the services of the slave, with the corresponding obli- 
gation on the part of the master to treat the slave kindly, and 
to provide him with abundant food and raiment during life, 
and with religious instruction. Are there any circumstan- 
ces which can justify such a claim? Or is the claim in itself 
sinful, and the relation founded on it a sinful relation? Mr. 
Blanchard affirms: I deny. 

Let it be distinctly understood, that if slaveholding is in 
itself sinful ; it is sinful under all possible circumstances, and 
must be instantly abandoned without regard to consequences. 
Blasphemy, for example, is in itself sinful ; and therefore it 
cannot be justified by any possible circumstances. The gen- 
tleman informed us, that in two of the southern States the 
slaves constitute a majority of the population. Now if slave- 
holding is in itself sinful, and if the doctrine that all men 
are born free and equal, is to be carried out without regard 
to circumstances , those States are bound forthwith to liberate 
all their slaves, and grant them the right to vote and to fill 
any office within the gift of the people. Then a colored man 
might be the next governor ; and colored men might consti- 
tute their Legislature, and set on the bench as judges in their 
courts. Thus the entire administration of the government 
in those States would be placed in the hands of degraded 
men, wholly ignorant of the principles of lnw and govern- 
ment. Will the gentleman go for thia ? Would he be wil- 
ling to place himself under such a government ? Will he 
contend, that those two States are bound immediately to place 
their slaves on an equality with their masters ? He must 
contend for this, or abandon the principles of abolitionism. 

In denying that slave-holding is in itself sinful, I do not 
defend slavery as an institution that ought to be perpetuated. 
I am not a pro-slavery man. I am opposed to slavery ; I de- 
plore the evils connected with it. Most sincerely do I de- 
sire its removal from our land, so soon as it can be effected 
v/ith safety to the parties involved in it. Most heartily do I 
desire to see every slave free ; not nominally free, as are the 
3 



34 DISCUSSION 

colored people of Ohio, but truly free, as are many now in 
Liberia, who were once slaves. I go for gradual emancipa- 
tion, and for colonization ; but I will not agree to denounce 
and excommunicate every individual, who under existing cir- 
cumstances, is a slave-holder. I maintain, that circumstances 
have existed, and do now exist, which justify the relation for 
the time being. 

I oppose abolitionism, not because it tends to abolish sla- 
very, and improve the condition of the slave, but because, as 
I firmly believe, it tends to perpetuate slavery, and to aggra- 
vate all its evils. That such is its tendency, that such have 
been its effects, I think I can prove to every unprejudiced 
mind. 

If the doctrine for which I contend, were held only by 
slave-holders, or by men residing in slave-holding communi- 
ties, I might be led strongly to suspect, that by early prejudi- 
ces my judgment had been unduty biased; but when I remem- 
ber, that it has been held, and is now held by the great body 
of the wisest and best men ; that every commentator, critic 
and theologian of any note, however opposed to slavery, 
interprets the Scriptures on this subject just as I do; I 
cannot hesitate as to whether my views are correct. Sus- 
tained by such names, I go forward fearlessly in their defence. 

I agree with the gentleman in regarding the subject be- 
fore us as one of incalculable importance. It is important 
to the church of Christ. For if the doctrine of abolition- 
ists is true, we must refuse to hold Christian fellowship with 
slave-holders. The church in the free States must be sepa- 
rated from the church in the slave-holding States, as the 
Jews and Samaritans of old. Already has the work of di- 
vision commenced. The Methodist and Baptist chujches 
are divided ; and other churches are likely to meet a simi- 
lar fate. The importance of this subject is greatly enhanc- 
ed by its bearings upon our civil Union. Already is it bit- 
terly denounced by leading abolitionists ; and if their doc- 
trine prevail, the day is at hand when the northern and 
Bouthern States AviU form two distinct and hostile govern- 



ON SLAVERY. 35 

ments. Surely, then, the subject demands of every Chris- 
tian, patriot and philanthropist a candid and careful investi- 
gation. 

In this discussion I have nothing to prove. Mr. Blan- 
chard has undertaken to prove that slave-holding is in itself 
sinful. It is my business to meet his arguments, and to 
show that they do not establish his proposition. Yet I in- 
tend, from time to time, to present arguments which, as I 
think, prove conclusively that the doctrine of abolitionism 
is untrue. 

Having now presented before the audience the question 
for discussion, divested of the mass of extraneous matter so 
constantly thrown around it, I proceed to reply to that part 
of Mr. Blanchard's speech which has not yet been noticed. 

He says, truly, that we all desire, or should desire, a pure 
Christianity. But whether abolitionism is pure Christianity, 
is at least a debateable question. To my mind it is clear 
that it is not Christianity at all. The question is not, as the 
gentleman says, whether humanity can appeal to Christi- 
anity for protection ; whether we have a human or an inhu- 
man religion. If this is the question, why discuss it? — 
Does it require a public debate to prove to the people of Cin- 
cinnati that we have a humane religion ? No ; the question 
is not whether the condition of the slaves ought to be im- 
proved, but whether the doctrine and the practice of aboli- 
tionists tends to improve it. 

But the gentleman tells us that the slaves have no fami- 
lies ; that their children are born out of wedlock, and are 
illegitimate, because the civil law does not recognize their 
marriage. This, however, is not true. The marriage of 
slaves is as valid in the view of God's law as that of their 
masters. Marriage is a Bible institution. Will the gentle- 
man point us to the portion of Scripture which makes re- 
cognition of marriage by the civil law necessary to its va- 
lidity? Or will he refer us to the portion of Scripture which 
prescribes any particular ceremony as essential to its validity ? 

By way of exciting our sympathies, he told us that the 



36 DISCUSSION 

slaves have no patronymics^ but, like dogs and horses, are 
called Sally, and Bill, and Tom, &c. Will the gentleman 
inform us what was Abraham's sirname, ? Or what were the 
<patranymics of Isaac and Jacob? He can find multitudes 
of slaves named Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. Indeed, 
he will find amongst them the names of all the twelve Pa- 
triarchs. And, verily, he may even find amongst them 
George Washingtons ! I presume they are not suffering 
for lack of names. I heard of one who, on having her 
child baptized, desired to give it a Scripture name ; so she 
called it Beelzebub. So far as I am informed, masters are 
not in the habit of interfering w4th their names. 

The gentleman is under the impression that the funda- 
mental principles of our government have been for some 
time running down. But if those principles were so well 
understood fifty years ago, how happened it that slavery was 
permitted to exist in our country? It is certain, that the 
principles of which he speaks, were not better understood 
then than now; for when the Constitution of the United 
States was adopted, it would have been much easier to ex- 
clude slavery from this country, than to abolish it at the 
present day. 

I do not remember that the gentleman offered one argu- 
ment to prove slave-holding in itself sinful, unless he inten- 
ded his appeal to the Constitutions of Ohio, Indiana, and 
Illinois, to be so considered ! These three States, it is true, 
adopted Constitutions prohibiting the existence of slavery; 
but whether they did so on the ground that slave-holding is 
necessarily sinful, or for other reasons, I am not informed. — ■ 
At any rate, they are not the rule of our faith, or of our 
morals. 

I will now proceed to offer some arguments, as time may 
permit, proving that slave-holding is not in itself sinful. 

1. My first argument is founded upon the admitted fact, 
that the great principles of morality are written upon the 
human heart, and, when presented, do commend themselves 
to the understandings and the consciences of all men, unless 



ON SLAVERY. 37 

we except the most degraded. But the doctrine, that slave- 
holding is in itself sinful — is a heinous and scandalous sin, 
has not thus commended itself to the great mass, even of 
the wise and good. Therefore it is not true. That the 
great principles of the moral law are written upon the hearts 
of men, and do, especially when distinctly presented, com- 
mend themselves to the understandings and consciences of 
men, is a Scripture truth, which, I think, the gentleman will 
not call in question. Would it be possible for even the 
basest of men deliberately and conscientiously to maintain, 
that falsehood, theft, robbery, murder, perjury'-, blasphemy, 
and the like, are not in themselves sinful? What would 
be thought of a man professing to be a minister of the gos- 
pel, who would gravely and earnestly contend, that the 
commission of such crimes is, in many circumstances, jus- 
tifiable, and, therefore, ought not to be made a bar to Chris- 
tian fellowship ; and that the Apostles of Jesus Christ did 
receive such men into the churches organized by them. — 
Yet it is a fact which Mr. Blanchard will not deny, that 
the great body of wise and good men, in ancient and in 
modern times, including all the commentators, critics, and 
theologians of any note, have believed, that the Apostles of 
Christ did receive slave-holders into their churches, and that 
slave-holding is not in itself sinful ! Flow shall we account 
for this singular fact? 

That the force of this argument may be seen, mark the 
fact, that according to the teaching of abolitionists, slave- 
holding is a crime of the first magnitude. The gentleman 
himself, in a speech in the Detroit Convention, pronounced 
it one of the greatest abominations of paganism. I have 
here a pamphlet entitled " The Brotherhood of Thieves," 
in which the writer prefers against the churches and the 
clergymen in these United States, charges in the following 
language : 

"I said, at your meeting, among other things, that the 
American church and clergy, as a body were thieves, adul- 
terers, manstealers, pirates, and murderers ; that the Metho- 



SS DISCUSSION 

dist Episcopal Church was more corrupt and profligate than 
any house of ill-fame in the city of New York; that the 
Southern ministers of that body were desirous of perpetua- 
ting slavery, for the purpose of supplying themselves with 
concubines from among its hapless victims ; and that many 
of our clergymen were guilty of enormities that would dis- 
grace an Algerine pirate! !" 

This sweeping charge is made, not only against slave- 
holders, but against the Christian church, and the ministers 
of every denomination in our country, on the ground that 
they all directly or indirectly uphold slavery. If, then, we 
are to believe this author, there can be no greater iniquity 
than slave-holding. Stephen S. Foster is the author. I 
have no personal knowledge of him, but certain it is, he is 
an abolitionist of the first water. I have another pamphlet, 
of which James Duncan is the author, published originally 
at Vevay, la., republished in 1840, bp the Cincinnati Anti- 
Slavery Society. This work is, of course, excellent au- 
thority. I read on page 39 : " The crime of slave-holding 
may, by a very short process of reasoning, be shown to be 
much more aggravating than a common act of murder." — 
Again, on page 42 : " Therefore, slave-holding involves both 
masters and slaves in the most aggravated degrees of adulte- 
ry; and not only so, but it entails it upon all succeeding 
generations." * * * " The sins forbidden in the eighth 
commandment are theft, robbery, man-stealing, and know- 
ingly receiving any thing that is stolen. That slave-holding 
implies all these kinds of thefts, will appear by analyzing the 
crime of theft, to discover wherein its principal point of 
criminality lies." Again, on page 45 : " Considering, then, 
the true nature of slave-holding, as it deprives a man of all 
his natural rights during life, and taking into view the dig- 
nity of human nature, or high rank of man in the scale of 
created existence, compared with the most noble of the 
brute creation, it may be safely concluded that the crime of 
slave-holding is a degree of theft as much more aggravating 
than horse-stealing, as a man is better than a horse." 



ON SLAVERY. 39 

I might read much more of the same character ; for the 
author attempts to prove that slave-holding is a gross viola- 
tion of every commandment in the decalogue! If these 
representations are true, slave-holding is one of the most 
abominable crimes a man can commit, and consequently- 
one of the grossest violations of the fundamental principles 
of morality: Yet such men as Matthew Henry, Dr. Scott, 
Dr. Doddridge, Dr. McKnight, Dr. Chalmers, and many 
others, teach us that God did permit the Jews to hold slaves, 
and that the Apostles did admit slave-holders into their 
churches as faithful brethren, and, of course, that slave-hold- 
ing is not in itself sinful. Now, one of two things is true, 
viz : either the abolitionists are in most serious error on this 
subject, or the great body of the wisest and best men, with 
the Bible in their hands, have been blind to the fundamen- 
tal principles of morality, and most profoundly stupid and 
degraded. I cheerfully leave this audience to judge which 
is most probable. Indeed, it would be as difficult to account 
for the peculiar illumination of modern abolitionists, as for 
the astonishing stupidity of men so universally esteemed 
eminently wise and good. 

2. My second argument is this: There never was, and 
never can be, a man, or a class of men, heretical on one 
fundamental point of faith, or of morals, and yet sound on 
all the other doctrines of the Bible, and on all other impor- 
tant principles of morality. The rejection of one funda- 
mental doctrine of the gospel, leads necessarily to the rejec- 
tion of others ; and the disposition of mind leading to the 
rejection of one, would lead to the rejection of others, as 
equally offensive to the carnal mind. So the rejection of a 
fundamental principle of morality evinces a destitution of 
moral integrity, which would certainly lead to the disregard 
of other principles, and the commission of other crimes. — 
The truth now stated is too obvious to be disputed. You 
might as well assert that a man may have vision so clear as 
distinctly to see every pillar in this house, except the one 
just before him ; but that he cannot see it ! Every one sees 



40 DISCUSSION 

at once, that the clearness of sight, which would enable him 
to see the other pillars, would equally enable him to see 
this. 

Now, it is an acknowledged fact, that the ministers and 
churches in the slave-holding States, are as sound in the 
faith on all other points, except the one in question, as the 
abolitionists themselves. It is not, and cannot be denied, 
that, with the single exception of slave-holding, they are as 
pure in their moral character, possess as expansive benevo- 
lence, and abound as much in good works, as any abolitionist 
on earth. Yet these people, sound in faith, pure in morals, 
and of enlarged benevolence, if abolitionism be true, ought 
to be executed by the common hangman, or confined for life 
in the penitentiary ; for they are guilty of stealing, kidnap- 
ping, murder, adultery, &c., in their worst forms ! Who can 
believe contradictions so glaring? Yet we must believe 
them, or pronounce abolitionism false, glaringly false. 

Having presented these two arguments, which to me ap- 
pear unanswerable, I will offer no more at the present 
time. When Mr. Blanchard shall have completed his defi- 
nition of slave-holding, and offered some arguments in favor 
of his affirmative proposition, I shall be prepared to present 
some others. The question before us is not to be decided by 
appeals to sympathy, but by scriptural argument. Yet if 
the gentleman is determined to rely on such appeals, I hope 
to be able to present a sufficient number of instances of 
cruelty in connection with the parental and conjugal rela- 
tions, to demonstrate the utter fallacy of all such logic. Or 
if from it the conclusion be drawn, that slave-holding is in 
itself sinful ; the conclusion that these relations are sinful, 
will follow, of course. To this result the audience, especi- 
ally the younger portion, I presume, will be slow to come. — 
They must come to it, however, or pronounce all the gen- 
tleman's arguments from the cruelty of wicked men, desti- 
tute of weight. 

We profess to be the friends of the slave ; and we are 
prepared to prove, that those who adopt substantially our 



ON slavehy. 41 

views, have done and are doing incalculably more to im- 
prove their condition, than the abolitionists ; that wherever 
slavery has been abolished, it has been effected, not by the 
principles of modern abolitionism, but by the principles 
we advocate. We take the Bible of God as our guide ; 
and to its plain teachings we confidendy appeal. The ques- 
tion is not, as already remarked, whether the oppressed 
shall find in Christianity an asylum ; but shall we condemn 
those whom God has not condemned? Shall we denounce 
and excommunicate persons of such character as were ad- 
mitted to fellowship by the inspired Apostles of Christ? 
Shall we preach the gospel to slaves, and thus secure to 
them happiness here and glory hereafter ; or shall we run a 
few of them to Canada, where their condition, instead of be- 
ing improved, is made worse, and where they will rarely, 
if ever, hear the sound of the gospel ? If I believed the 
doctrine so zealously propagated by the gentleman and his 
abolitionist brethren, tended to abolish slavery, and improve 
the condition of the slave, I should be slow to oppose it. 
But most fully am I convinced, that its tendency is precisely 
the reverse ; and, therefore, as the friend of the slaves I op- 
pose it. [_Time expired. 



Wednesday, P. M., 4 1-2 o'clock 

[MR. BLANC hard's SECOND SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen Moderators and respected Fellow-Citizens : 

There are some things -which have fallen from my broth- 
er which require a brief passing notice before I resume the 
thread of my remarks. He has quoted two authorities. 

With regard to the first,. Mr. Foster, it is proper that 1 
should say he is doubtless a sincere and well-meaning man, 
and he is as ardently opposed to the anti-slavery men with 
whom I act, as he is to slavery itself. His feelings have 
been exasperated, and some have said, his reason shaken. 
Ho has often been imprisoned in the jails of the Eastern 



4<i DISCUSSION 

States. Whether his reason is aflectcd or not, persecution 
sometimes "maketh a wise man mad," and friend Foster 
has had a good deal of it. I will also quote authority ; (and 
I promise not to go to the jails or mad houses for it.) As to 
Rev. James Duncan, whom he has quoted, he was the 
father of Dr. Duncan our late representative in Congress 
and he wrote his book in Kentucky, and published it at 
Vevay, Indiana, in 1824, eight years previous to the first 
modern anti-slavery society ; after preaching as a pasior at 
Warsaw, in Kentucky. I cordially recommend to all to read 
it as the production of an able and profound mind. Dr. 
Duncan, in conversation respecting his deceased father, de- 
clared to me that he held all the sentiments of the book on 
the subject of slavery. 

My brother is not pleased with my making slow progress 
in thja debate. I confess I can scarcely hope to please him. 
I fear that he will find my course of argument more and 
more in his way the farther we proceed. As he has told you 
some half dozen times, I have not yet got through the pre- 
liminaries. Some one reproached the Grecian painter, 
Apelles, it is said, because he worked so slowly. He re- 
plied in Greek ; " True, 1 paint in a long time, but I paint 
roR a long time." He intended his work should stand. 

One or two other things fell from my friend which I can- 
not stop to notice. I must here say, I wish we could each 
correct the other, as we go along. He has doubtless unin- 
tenti ^nall^^'lmisstatcd two of my propositions which were some- 
what important. Now, if I happen to misstate him, I wish 
to be put right at the instant, for nothing is gained in dis- 
cussion either by exaggerated or by false statements. 

My friend condemns, he says, the holding of slaves for 
gain ; and the buying and selling of them. He thinks he 
condemns these things as much as we do. If he acts up to 
these words I can show you that he is an abolitionist, in 
respect to southern slavery. 

I read from a pamphlet, not of my afflicted friend Foster, 
but from the Rev. James Smylie, some time clerk of Amity 
Presbytery, Mississippi. ' 



ON^SLAVERY. 43 

*' If slavery be a sin, and if advertising and apprehending 
slaves vv'ith a view to restore them to their masters is a 
direct violation of the Divine law, and if the buying^ selling 
and HOLDING SLAVES FOR THE SAKE OF GAIN is a hoinous sin 
and scandal ; then verily, three-fourths of all the Methodists, 
Episcopalians, Baptists, and Presbyterians in eleven Slates 
of the Union, are of the Devil. They hold, if they do not 
buy and sell slaves ; and, with few exceptions^ they hesitate 
not to apprehend and restore runaway slaves when in their 
power." — Smylie's pa7nphlel, 1837. 

Here is the declaration of no mean authority — of the 
clerk of a southern presbytery — that three-fourths of all 
the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Methodists in eleven 
of the United States, do hold slaves for gain. Now if men 
have a right to '' hold slaves for gain," they may surely buy 
and sell them for like reason. Yet Dr. Rice assures us 
that he condemns these things as strongly as do abolitionists. 
I turn him over to his southern brethren. He has said in 
round terms, in this atmosphere of abolitionism, (or what is 
fast becoming so,) that he condemned a practice in which 
three-fourths of all his southern brethren (who regard him 
as their champion, and who know that, in heart, he is so) 
are engfao-ed. 

His skin argument^ which is, that if slavery were abol- 
ished we might have colored governors and judges, &c., I 
do not know whether I should answer formally. He told 
us he was in favor of giving colored people political privi- 
leges as fast as they should be fitted to exercise them by 
elevation of mind and character: his only objection stated, 
was that they wanted the requisite information, and qualifi- 
cations for self-government. So, it seems, he has not so 
great a horror of colored voters and rulers after all, since it 
is certain that colored people must eventually get sufficient 
knowledge to take part in politics. 

In reply, I simply state the doctrine of abolitionists on this 
subject of the political rights of colored people . 

There are three sorts of human rights. Political, Social 



44 DISCUSSION 

and Natural. Votrng is a political riglit. Abolitionists hold 
that the right of suffrage is a commodity which the commu- 
nity have a right to dispose of with an eye to its preservation. 
Thart it is therefore properly left to be governed by wise 
and just political maxims, irrespective of color. The com- 
munity has a right to protect itself. Foreigners, after com- 
ing to the United States, are not allowed to vote for one year, 
and, in some States, for seven years after they arrive. Yet, 
they are free from the instant they land on our shores. 
Now, abolitionists do not say that the State governments are 
sinful in not allowing unnaturalized foreigners to vote. The 
whole subject of political rights lies out side of this discus- 
sion. So also does that of the domestic or social rights. 
For example, a colored or white man might wish to marry 
your daughter. But if you or she determines that the match 
shall not take place, you do not rob him. or sin against his 
rights. Voting and marrying, then, are not of this discus- 
sion. Abolitionists take their stand upon the New Testa- 
ment doctrine of the natural equality of man. The one 
bloodism of human kind : — and upon those great principle? 
of human rights, drawn from the New Testament, and 
announced in the American Declaration of Independence, 
declaring that all men have natural and inalienable right to 
to person, property and the pursuit of happiness. They 
only carry out the admitted truth that all are equal. 
. My brother made a difficulty to see what the Roman and 
Greek slave systems had to do with the question before us. 
I answer that I adduce the Greek and Roman slavery, in or- 
der to show that they were identical with American slavery ; 
and also to show that those who justify Roman slavery 
(which was the slavery of the Apostles' times) from the Bi- 
"ble, justify also our own slavery, auction-mart, plantation-dis- 
cipline, and all, from the sacred word of God 1 For slavery 
is, here and every where, one. 

! You will remember my brother told you he did not un- 
derstand what is meant by " a system of slavery P I ad- 
duced the Greek and Roman systems to show him what " a 



ON SLAVERY. 45 

system of slavery" is, and surely he should count it a charity 
in me. To show, also, that Burgundian and Gothic, Grecian 
and Roman slavery are all one and the same thing, viz : the 
holding of men as 'property. That the condition of the 
slave, in law, as I will show more fully hereafter, is his 
condition in fact. And that a man, who pretends to 
oppose the cruel laws of slaver}'-, and yet justifies slave-hold- 
ing, appears to he plainly talking without intelligence or 
reason. 

To show that the slave's legal is his actual condition, I 
will refer in passing, to a case decided hy Judge Crenshaw, 
1 Stewarts' Rep. 320 : 

" A slave is in absolute bondage ; he has no civil right, and 
can hold no property, except at the will and pleasure of his 
master. A slave is a rational being, endowed with under- 
standing like the rest of mankind, and whatever he lawfully 
acquires and gains possession of, by finding or otherwise, is 
the acquirement and possession of the master. And in 5 
Cowen's Rep. 397, the Court held that a slave at common 
law could not contract matrimony, nor could the child of a 
slave take by descent or purchase." — Wheeler's Law of 
Slavery, p. 7. 

This is a reported case. It is not statute law, which may 
or may not be executed. It is a common law decision. It 
is the practice of the law, and shows how the law handles 
slaves whenever it touches them or their interests. 

My friend justifies slave-holding, yet tells us he is oppos- 
ed to the separation of man and wife! How absurd and 
irrational such a position is, the case cited shows. 

I have already shown you that American slavery is iden- 
tical with that of all other ages and nations. Our whole 
system is condensed into one single paragraph: 

" Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed, and adjudg- 
ed in law, to he chattels personal, in the hands of their 
owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators^ 
and assigns, to all intents, constructions^ and purposes 
whatsoever.'^ — 2 Brev. Dig. 229. 



46 DISCUSSION 

^ This is the definition of actual slavery. This law of 
South Carolina, with the consequent fact, that '-• a slave can 
acquire nothings can possess 7iothi7ig, but which belongs to 
the mastcr^^ is a re-enactment of the Roman English code. 
For this one property-holding principle contains, and includes 
in itseit every principle and element of the slave code. 

Not only is this one grand, all-pervading, and all-con- 
trolling principle of chattelism, taken literally from the Ro- 
man code, hut also the minor enactments, such as the law 
by which the slave who is inhumanly treated, may be sold 
for the benefit of the master; and the statute giving the 
owner damages for the mal-treatment of his slaves, are 
copied from the same source. I will not dwell on the inci- 
dents of slavery ; but beg you to mark, that this slave-hold- 
ing is the slave-holding of American holders. It is the te- 
nure by which all the owners, however kind or pious, Pres- 
byterian, Methodist, Episcopalian, or Baptist, hold their hu- 
man chattels. The noose of chattelism is around the neck 
of every slave, and brings back every fugitive to the most 
pious master, not as a man^ but as an animal, a chattel, a 
thing ! 

Thus slave-holding is degrading men to the level of brutes 
as completely as the nature of the case will admit. 

Will my friend tell us that the law which makes men prop- 
erty is only an incident of slavery, and not the thing itself ? 
"Will he say that the law ^^ partus sequitur veiitrem^^ is one 
of those *• cruel laws" which may be repealed and yet 
slavery exist, or a law which is *' a mere dead letter?'* 
Does not the slave's child follow the condition of its mother ? 
Is not that practice as well as law ? Is there a place in Ken- 
tucky, a county in Maryland, or town in Virginia where the 
child of a slave is not the slave of the man who owns its 
mother, let who will be the father ? And what law of slave- 
ry can be more cruel than this ? Yet to pretend to oppose 
this law as cruel, and still justify slave-holding as not sinful 
is — I had almost used a severe expression, and said, it is an 
insult to common sense, Gent)em/'n, I ask you all who 



ON SLAVERY. 47 

have minds to receive and understand truth., what law of 
slavery can be so cruel, as that which makes the man a slave? 
This 25 the cruelty of slavery, that it is slavery. Away, 
then, forever, with such stuff as saying that you are opposed 
to the cruel laws of slavery, but not to slave-holding itself! 
Bear with me while I dwell on this point. As our friend re- 
galed our senses with Mr. Foster's adultery cases, I will 
follow his example as far as severe justice to the cause of 
truth requires. It is the law '■^'partus sequitur ventrem''^ 
that distinguishes slaves from men. You know that by the 
law of God the man is the head of the woman as Christ is 
head of the church, and the father also, of the house, and gives 
name to the child. But as slaves cannot marry, — as it nev- 
er was designed that they should exist in families, they are 
put under the same law which applies to brute animals in 
the field, where, if progeny is found, the owner of the 
cow drives away and owns the calf! Does any one think 
these disgusting details are out of taste in this assembly? 
why then should christians be allowed to practice a law 
which is too shocking for me to describe ? 

God knows I did not make the law, — and I would not even 
name it, but with the hope of contributing something to bring 
it to an end. 

But, as you see, this first principle of slavery utterly des- 
troys, among slaves, God's law of paternity. The " Our 
Father," which begins with the eternal Father of all, and con- 
nects by heads of families the vv^hole chain of intelligent be- 
ing to its source, is annihilated. Slave-children, stript of 
parentage and subject to masters, cannot feel the sweet and 
awful force of the words, " Our Father which art in Heav- 
en." For the great principle of paternity is swept from the 
slave code, and so far as possible from slave hearts. 

See yon southern Tamar, as she goes weeping from the 
couch of her master, to which she has been first dragged, and 
then thrust away, in that after-hate which in mean minds sa- 
ted lust generates towards its victims. Behold her, as she 
goes weeping from the house, to the plantation of her rav- 



48 DISCUSSION 

isher, or, it may be, sold to the far South at the instance of 
a jealous mistress, going along weeping and bearing all the 
weaknesses and woes of maternity alone — ihe weaknesses of 
moiher-hood alone ! yes I alone; amid the evening scourg- 
ino-s, the brief and broken slumbers — the morning shell-blow, 
and wasting toil, and drivers' blasphemies, and hurried 
meals of insuflicient food, and all the paraphernalia of that 
hell on earth, a southern cotton plantation : and tell me, what 
one evil has been perpetrated upon the person of that wretch- 
ed young woman which is not provided for and sanctioned 
by tlie law of slavery — which is not of the essence of the 
slave-holding power? You know, and there are plenty of 
living instances to show, that adultery is no crime when 
perpetrated upon a slave. Why ? Because the principle 
of slavery is the caltlc principle. The slave code, here, and 
every where, formerly and now, and ever, places female 
slaves precisely in the condition of female cattle on a com- 
mon. It was never contemplated that they should have hus- 
bandsj and their children, fathers. Oh listen, when I shall 
sit down, and weep for sorrow while you listen, to a min- 
ister of the gospel, justifying slavery itself as no sin, yet 
turning round and telling us that he is opposed to the cruel 
laws of slavery? 

Another circumstance showing the unique and terrible 
nature of slavery, is, that amid the world's revolutions and 
modifications it alone remains the same. While civil oov- 
ernment has been advancing; while the ancient despotisms 
have softened into regular monarchies; the monarchies into 
aristocracies; and hoary and haughty aristocracies have 
thence again melted into democracy; — while war itself has 
put ofT half its ferocity; and even the deliberate murderer's 
right to life is vindicated against capital punishment; sla- 
very is the same. It exists to-day, in Kentucky, precisely as 
it did on the Roman Campagna eighteen hundred years 
ago. The only remedy for it, is destruction. The dire 
principle on which it rests, the property-holding of men, 
admits of no amelioration. Civilization has not humanized 



ON" sla\t:ry. 49 

It; letters have not liberalized it; nor has Christianity recon- 
ciled it with the gospel of Christ, Like the carnal mind, 
of which it is the offspring, it "is enmity against God, for it 
is not in subjection to the law of God, neither indeed can 
be." It has remained, and, until destroyed, must remain 
forever unmitigated and immitigable. And for this plain 
reason: being no part of civil society, but pure crime, it 
does not improve with civil society. It is the same dark 
and damninor curse now, that it was eif^hteen centuries aofo. 
Why? Not only because, like all crime, it is by nature 
incapable of improvement, but also because it is so bad a 
thing that it makes every one grow worse, who is connected 
with it. "Oh!" said the late Charles Hammond, of this 
city, upon his death-bed ; " Oh ! slavery is not the thing it was 
when I first knew it in Virginia, Then the slaves were 
treated like servants — called in to faniily worship, and con- 
sidered members of the family. But men have grown sor- 
did now; and God knows where things will end." I saw 
large tears steal down his cheek, deep-furrowed with emo- 
tion, as he uttered these monitory truths. 

Ah ! gentlemen and fellow citizens, that which is so 
bad that it makes all those sinners who partake of it, is 
itself a sin — evil only evil ; uniformly and forever evil. 
The very poetry of the Irish bard becomes sober prose ia 
the lips of a slave : — 

" One fatal remembrance, one sorrow that throws 
Its bleak shade alike o'er all joys and all woea, 
To which life nothing darker nor brighter can bring. 
For which joy has no balm, and affliction no sting." 

I have simply to repeat, that while for eighteen hundred 
years every relation and department of civil society has 
been revolutionized and regenerated, slavery has rem^ained 
the same. It has steadily held the same deadly antagonism 
to God and m.an. Nothing can be added to it — nothing 
taken from, it which will change its nature. And the only 
human sentiment which, it leaves free to the breast of its 
victims, is despair. . 



60 DISCUSSION 

What is still worse, while slavery remains absolutely the 
same, relatively it is perpetually growing worse. By a 
principle which is plain and obvious, just in that proportion 
in which the light of liberty increases, the darkness of 
adjacent slavery grows more dense. For as civilization 
advances, it creates new wants and luxuries, and the bur- 
dens of society grow more numerous. And, as slavery is 
a condition of things which gives all the benefits of society 
to one class of the people, and lays all its burdens upon 
another, the increase of the slave's miseries keeps pace with 
the increase of the conveniences and comforts of the free. 
And thus, as the light increases in the Goshen of our 
Liberty, the darkness in the Egypt of our Slavery becomes 
more and more terribly "a darkness which may be felt." 

\_Time expired. 



[MR. rice's second SPEECH.] 

I propose, in the present speech, to follow the gentleman, 
step by step, and reply to Avhat he has now offered in sup- 
port of his proposition. Mr. Foster, he says, is as much 
opposed to his views, as to slavery itself. 

Mr. Blanchard. I said to the party^ not to the views. 

Mr. Rice. Mr. Foster is opposed to Mr. Blanchard's 
parly^ not to his views. So, then, Mr. Foster's views, after 
all, are the views of .the abolitionists, just as I had supposed! 
Still the gentleman would escape the odium justly attaching 
to Foster's views, by representing him insane ! Whether 
he is insane or not, I pretend not to know ; but I have rarely 
seen an essay in which a writer has presented more clearly, 
or presented in a stronger light his views, than Foster has 
done in this. I have little doubt, that he was about as sane as 
any man who holds the ultra abolition doctrine can be. 

But I was pleased to hear the gentleman give to Duncan's 
pamphlet, published by the Cincinnati Anti-slavery Society, 
an unqualified rccomrhendation ; for Foster has not, I be- 
lieve, advanced one sentiment more ultra, than those con- 



ON SLAVER y, 51 

tained in Duncan's pamphlet. Duncan, as we have seen, 
pronounces slave-holding a greater crime than murder, or 
theft, or adultery. Nay, he undertakes to prove it to be an 
aggravated violation of every commandment in the Deca- 
logue ! He does not stop at this. He contends, that it is 
not only the right, but the duty of the slave, to escape from his 
master ; that it is his right and his duty to gain his liberty, 
if need be, by insurrection and bloodshed ! He even asserts, 
that every man who should be killed in attempting to sup- 
press a slave insurrection, would be punished in hell for- 
ever ! ! ! Lest the audience should think, that I am slander- 
ing Mr. Blanchard, and the Cincinnati Abolition Society, 
by charging them with endorsing statements so abhorrent, 
I will read one or two extracts from the pamphlet. On 
page 109 the author says — "It appears self-evident that they 
are not only in duty bound to embrace the first favorable 
opportunity to escape from their t5rrants, but it would be 
criminal to neglect it, so that no jury could decide such a 
case against the slave Avithout contracting great guilt and 
incurring damnation." Again — " Should a slave State, m 
imminent danger of being overcome by an insurrection of 
the slaves, call upon a neighboring State for assistance, in 
either men, money, arms, ammunition, or provisions, for the 
purpose of suppressing the slaves, no part of that assistance 
could be granted without contracting blood-guiltiness, nor 
without calling down the judgments of God upon the nation ; 
and all such as might fall, when fighting in defence of a 
cause, that could not have even the color of justice, might 
be expected to spend an eternity in chains and darkness, 
with no better company than that of slave-holders." Again 
— " No slave State could have any legal claim on the Fed- 
eral government for assistance to suppress an insurrection of 
the slaves ; because slavery is directly contrary to the Fed- 
eral Constitution," &c. 

Such are the sentiments advanced in this pamphlet, 
published in 1840, by the Cincinnati Abolition Society, and 
recommended without qualification by Mr. Blanchard ! Can 



52 DISCUSSION 

we wonder, that the people of the slave-holding States have 
lost all confidence in the abolitionists; they hold their prin- 
ciples and their conduct in utter abhorrence ? And is this 
the " pure Christianity," for which the gentleman and his 
associates so zealously plead ? Are we to be told, that pure 
Christianity not only requires slaves to run from their mas- 
ters but sanctions slave insurrections and murders, and 
dooms to eternal punishment the man who would raise his 
hand to quell them? Yet, this is the doctrine advocated by 
the gentleman and his co-adjutors ! This is the doctrine of 
modern abolitionism ; and this doctrine I oppose, and ever 
will oppose. It is a slander on the gospel of Christ and its 
glorious Author to say, that it is sanctioned by him. 

By the way, the gentleman was mistaken in supposing 
that I was displeased with his speech. I stated the fact, that 
he spoke forty minutes without reaching the question, and 
twe^ity 7nore without defining it. Such speeches, if it were 
my object simply to gain a victoiy, would delight me. I 
must expose his entire failure to advance any argument in 
support of his proposition ; but I shall not be displeased 
'vrith him for his failure. 

Concerning Mr. Smylie's book, I can only say, I have not 
bad the opportunity to read it, and, therefore, can express no 
opinion concerning it. If the gentleman has correctly 
represented him, I decidedly differ from him ; and so, I am 
persuaded, will the great majority of southern Presbyterians. 

Whether Cincinnati is rapidly adopting the doctrine of 
the abolitionists, as the gentleman asserts, is, I think, at least 
very doubtful ; but if the doctrines of Mr. Duncan's pamph- 
let, endorsed by the Cincinnati Abolition Society, be ortho- 
dox abolitionism, I am confident that few men can be found 
in this city, who are abolitionists, or likely to become such. 

In reply to my inquiry, whether the gentleman would car- 
ry out his doctrines, so as to make the slaves free and equal 
in the two States where they constitute a majority of the 
population, he says, there are three classes of rights, politi- 
cal, social, and natural, that the abolitionists, whilst they 



ON SLAVERY. 53 

coiUend for the two last, do not propose to have the liberated 
slaves enjoy the right to vote oy fill Ihe civil offices. Their 
political rights they leave it to the wisdom of politicians to 
grant or withhold as they think proper! But did he not, in 
his first speech, quote the Declaration of Independence, that 
"all men are born free and equal," as setting forth tlie doc- 
trine for which he contends? Certainly he did. But now 
when pressed with the practical results of his principles, he 
says, he does not mean exactly to make the slaves free and 
equal. He does not contend that they shall have the right 
to vote for the laws under wliich they are to live, and by 
which only any of their rights can be secured. No — they 
must be governed by laws made for them by their betters, 
and be taxed without their consent ! Surely the principles 
of the Declaration of Independence are "running down" 
with the gentleman himself! And if, for the good of soci- 
ety, he can consent to make so great a difference between 
the colored and the white population, if he can consent to 
deprive the former of their political rights ; why not go a 
little further, if the good of society requires it ? Why stop 
precisely at this point? Will he please point us to the prin- 
ciple in the moral law, which permits us to deprive the col- 
ored people of certain important political rights, but teaches 
that we shall not deprive them of certain other rights? Or 
will he show us, according to correct principles of mo- 
rality, precisely how far v/e may go, and where sin com- 
mences ? You may, he t^ays, deprive them of the right to 
vote and to have a voice in making laws by which they are to 
be governed, because the good of society requires it ; but you 
can go no further v/ithout sin. Now let him turn us to the law 
for this singular principle of morality. Truly the gentleman 
finds it difllcult to get along with his moral principles. 

lie justifies his appeal to Roman slavery by asserting, that 
when we justify Roman slavery by the Bible, we justify 
American slavery. Are we discussing the question, wdiether 
Roman slavery is right or wrong? We are not. There 
were many things in Roman slavery, that were most unjust 



54 DISCUSSION 

and cruel. The question before lis relates simply to the re- 
lation of master and slave. "Is slaveliolding in itself sinful, 
and the relation between master and slave a sinful relation?" 
Such is the question proposed for the discussion by the ten 
challengers ; and yet the gentleman refuses to discuss it, 
amuses us with Roman slavery and American slavery, and 
seeks to excite our sympathies by reciting the cruelties in- 
flicted on slaves by wicked men. Let him prove, if he can, 
that these cruelties are essential to the existence of the rela- 
tion. Let him prove, that any humane or even decent man 
is guilty of inflicting them upon his slaves. Let him, if he 
can, point to the church session that refuses to discipline 
members for such conduct ; and we will see the matter at- 
tended to. 

But these are the arguments by which abolitionism seeks 
to sustain its claims. Its advocates are untiring in their 
search for extreme cases of cruelty ; and these are held up 
as essential characteristics of slave-holding wherever it ex- 
ists. "Look at that weeping woman," exclaims the gentle- 
man, "dragged," &c. Well — let me appeal to your sympa- 
thies against the conjugal relation. Look at that weeping 
widov/ fastened upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, 
with whose body she is to be consumed. See the fire kin- 
dled, and the smoke rising. Hear her piteous wailings, 
which the beating of drums and the shouts of the unfeelino- 
multitude cannot drown. Her only crime is, that she is 
tJie M'ife of tlie man who is dead. O the cruelty of the 
marriage relation! Who will not condemn and detest it! 
No — I am opposed to the burning of widows ; but I cannot 
condemn the marriage relation, though it is made the occa- 
sion of so much cruelty. Yet my appeal to your sympa- 
thies is as sound an argument against the marriage relation, 
as the gentleman's appeal to the cruelty of wicked men 
against the relation of master and slave. Neither proves 
any thino". 

The gentleman repeats the declaration, that slaves cannot 
contract marriage, and that their children are illegitimate. 



ON SLA\rERY. 55 

And I again call upon him to point to the part of Scripture 
%vhich makes recognition of marriage by the civil law essen- 
tial to its validity. Let him, if he can, show where the 
Bible prescribes any particular ceremony through which 
the parties must pass before they can be truly married. This 
he is certainly bound to do ; for marriage is a Bible institu- 
tion. I affirm, that the marriage of slaves is as valid in 
God's law, as that of their masters, and their children as le- 
gitimate. Will the gentleman pretend, that any master is 
bound to tear husband and wife apart, because he claims 
their services ? The truth is, it is as wicked to separate 
husband and wife amongst slaves, as amongst free men; 
and if any professor of religion is chargeable with so doing, 
let him be excluded from the church of Christ ; and let the 
church be purged of all such sinners. 

Mr. Smylie, says the gentleman, tells us that two-thirds of 
all the professors of religion in the South, hold slaves for 
the sake of gain. I have not said, that those who are mas- 
ters must have no regard to their own interests. Doubtless 
kind masters endeavor to make the advantage mutual. But, 
I condemned, and still condemn, speculating in human 
beings — tralERc for the sake of gain, and of course without 
reference to the happiness of the slave. No Christian can 
consistently purchase a slave without having regard to his 
happiness as well as his own advantage. It may be true, 
that the lavv^s permit great injustice and cruelty toward 
them. But, are we debating the question whether the laws 
of Georgia, or of any other State, are right ? We are not. 
Will the gentleman assert, that any master is obliged to 
inflict upon his slaves the injustice and cruelty which the 
law permits ? In many countries, the laws regulating 
marriage are most iniquitous; and even in Ohio, a man 
may treat his wife very cruelly, without being in danger of 
incurring the penalty of the civil law; but it does not fol- 
low, that the relation is in itself sinful. 

Mr. Blanchard asserts, that slavery is really getting 
worse, and the condition of the slaves becoming more intol- 



56 DISCUS&ION. ^ 

erable: This I utterly deny. It is a fact, that in Kentucky 
the laws regulating slavery have been much improved 
within a few years ; and the uniform testimony of those 
who go and see for themselves, is that the condition of the 
slaves is far better than it was several years ago. Dr. 
Drake, of Louisville, when recently on a tour through 
several of the southern States, made it his business to 
inquire particularly into the condition of the slaves ; and 
his testimony is, that it has greatly improved, and is now 
improving. It is well known, that many of the planters in 
the South not only freely admit ministers of the gospel to 
preach to their slaves, but that they even pay them salaries 
to secure their services. Everywhere in the slave-holding 
States the gospel is working a change in public sentiment, 
modifying the laws, and greatly improving the condition of 
the slaves, just as it did, for example, in the State of New 
York. Time was, when the slave laws of that State were 
more oppressive and cruel, than they now are in any one of 
the southern States. But gradually, under the influence of 
the gospel, a happy change was effected ; cruel laws were 
repealed; better laws were enacted; and finally slavery 
itself was abolished. 

But, says the gentleman, the best masters hold their 
slaves by a legal leuure ; and the law makes them mere 
property. And does not the husband hold his claim to his 
wife, according to his own doctrine, by a legal tenure? 
Did he not assert, that the slaves are not married validly, 
because the civil law does not recognize their marriage 1 
But the civil laws by which the marriage relation is regu- 
lated, are in many countries most defective and unjust. The 
laws of India make the wife the slave of the husband ; and, 
as already remarked, even in Ohio, a man may so treat his 
wife as to render her life a burden, without being in danger 
of the penalty of the law. Shall we then denounce the 
marriage relation as in itself sinful? I repeat, that I do 
not place the relation of master and slave upon an equality 
with that of husband and wife ; but I do maintain, that the 



ON SLAVERY. 57 

gentleman has no right to urge against the former, argu- 
ments which will equally sweep away the latter. 

To say, that we are opposed to the cruelties often prac- 
ticed toward slaves, and yet deny that the relation is in itself 
sinful, is to insult the common sense of men. So said Mr. 
Blanchard ; or he almost said it. Well, I suppose his com- 
mon sense is not like the common sense of other men. The 
common sense of such men as Drs. Chalmers, Cunning- 
ham, Spring, Tyler, and a multitude of the wisest and best 
men, has led them to make precisely the distinction between 
the relation and the cruelty of wicked men in the relation, 
which Mr. B. pronounces an insult to the common sense of 
men ! I fear, his common sense is almost peculiar to him- 
self; and certainly it is not safe to base a judgment con- 
cerning so grave a question upon the peculiar common 
sense of one man. He may pronounce the common sense 
of other men " stuff;''' but this proves nothing. 

He denounces particularly that lav/ — partus sequitur ven- 
fygjii — the child follows the condition of the mother, and 
tells us, that slavery places human beings among the cattle. 
Well, if such be necessarily its character, why debate the 
question at all ? Is discussion necessary in order to induce 
intelligent men to detest it? The gentleman constantly 
keeps out of view the real question at issue, viz : whether 
the relation itself is sinful, and dilates upon the cruel conduct 
of wicked men. He, as a minister of the gospel, professes to 
take the Bible as his only guide in faith and morals. He, 
of course, believes, that nothing can b^ condemned as sinful, 
which is not contrary to the written word of God. And yet 
we have heard him, during one hour and a half, labor to 
prove his proposition, without quoting one passage of Scrip- 
ture! Carefully avoiding to appeal to the rule of right, he 
attempts to carry his point by strong appeals to the sympa- 
thies of the audience. He tells us what Mr. Hammond said 
about the neglect of masters in Virginia to call their servants 
in to family worship. No doubt, there has been great and 
very culpable neglect of this duly, and I certainly cannot 



58 DISCUSSION. 

excuse or palliate it. But I rejoice to know, that for some 
time past, there has been a growing interest in the religious 
instruction of the slaves. Never was there so large an 
amount of money and labor expended in this interesting 
cause, as now. The Christians of the South are waking up 
to a sense of their obligation to have the gospel of Christ 
proclaimed to the slave, as well as to the master ; and in 
this movement I do rejoice. 

But since Mr. B. has appealed to the testimony of Mr. 
Hammond, I must also give you the testimony of a great and 
good man concerning the effect of the late abolitionist move- 
ment. Rev. Dr. Spring, of NeAV York, says — " The late Dr. 
Griffin, one of the most devoted friends of the colored race in 
this land, said to me a few months before his death, '' 1 do ?iot 
see that the efforts in favor of immediate cma7icipation^ have 
effected any thing hut to rivet the chains of the foor slaved 
Is not this," adds Dr. S., " a lamentable fact?" Obliga. of 
World, &c, p. 249. The dying testimony of such a man 
as Dr. GrifFm. is surely worthy of grave consideration, 

I suppose I ought not to be displeased with the gentleman 
for failing to offer arguments in support of his proposition. 
Yet I certainly desire, that he would do the best that can be 
done for his cause. I shall continue to present such argu- 
ments as I think conclusive from the word of God^ the only 
infallible rule of faith and life. The question before us is, 
whether the delation of master and slave, divested of all that 
is not essential to it, is sinful ; and this question only will I 
discuss. We have now passed through near three hours of 
the discussion ; — and yet Mr. B., though a minister of the 
Gospel, engaged in the discussion of a great moral and reli- 
gious question, has made no appeal to the law of God! 
Surely we could scarcely have anticipated such a course by 
a gentleman who has devoted so much time to the discussion 
of this subject. 

. But like the ancient painter, he is doing work, he tells us, 
for fosterity. He expects his work to stand forever. The 
painter, however, though progressing slowly, was doubtless 



' ON SLAVERY. 59 

putting" on colors of some kind, adapted to the completion of 
the picture. But what argument has the gentleman offered 
in proof of his proposition 1 He has told of Aristotle's defini- 
tion of slavery, of the supposed weeping woman upon whom 
a gross outrage has been committed, of the slave-gangs, &c. 
&c. ; but what argument has he offered ? I have some hope, 
that my work will endure for a time ; but nevertheless I choose 
to direct my arguments to the subject before us. 

I have presented two distinct arguments, to neither of 
which he has attempted a reply, viz : 1. The great principles 
of morality do, when propounded, commend themselves to 
the understanding and the conscience of all men, unless we 
except the most degraded. The truth of this declaration will 
scarcely be called in question. But it is a fact that the prin- 
ciole for which Mr. B. is contending — that slave-holding is 
in itself a heinous and scandalous sin — has not thus com- 
mended itself to the great body even of the wise and good. 
Therefore it is not true. If it be, how shall we account for 
this singular fact ? 2. It is a fact that the history of the world 
affords not an example of a man or body of men heretical on 
one fundamental doctrine of Christian faith or of Christian 
morality, but sound on all others. On the contrary, one fun- 
damental error necessarily leads to others. But it is admit- 
ted, that the ministers of the gospel and the laymen of church- 
es in the slave-holding States, are as sound on all points of 
doctrine, as pure on all points of morality, as benevolent in 
all respects, as the abolitionists themselves, with the single 
exception of the question of slavery ! They can see all the 
other great principles of morality ; but the greatest of all vi- 
olations of the moral law, i. e. that of slave-holding, they 
cannot perceive to be necessarily sinful at all ! BeUeve it 

who can. 

3. My third argument is this : It is admitted even by ma- 
ny abolitionists that there are in the slave-holding States 
true Christians and Christian churches— churches accepted 
of God, and often blessed with powerful revivals of reli- 
gion. If we are to judge of their piety by Scriptural marks, 



60 DISCUSSION 

they are not deficient in evidence ; and their fruits surely 
prove them genuine. Professor Stowe, of Lane Seminary, 
though he is an abohtionist, and though he bitterly denounced 
the General Assembly of tlie Presbyterian church for its 
action upon the subject of slavery, says — "I know individu- 
als who are slave-holders, and particular churches which in- 
clude slave-holders, whom, according to all the evidence I can 
gather, Christ does accept — and those individuals, and those 
particular churches, on my principles, I cannot reject, and I 
will not.'''' Watchman of the Valley., Aug. 14. In these 
churches masters and slaves worship God together; and 
their prayers are heard, and a rich blessing granted. Mr. 
Duncan and "the Cincinnati Abolition Society " assert, that 
the slave-holder is guilty of the violation, in an aggravated 
degree, of every commandment in the decalogue ; but Profes- 
sor Stowe acknowledges many of tliem as true Christians ! 
Now it is certain, that if they are as wicked as Duncan ac- 
cuses them of being, their prayers are an abomination to 
God. So that either those professing Christians and those 
churches are wretched liypocrites, and their revivals per- 
fectly spurious ; or abolitionism is false. I leave the audi- 
ence to determine which is tru'e. [Time expired. 



Yv^ednesday Evening, 7 o'olcck, P. M. 

[mR. BLANC hard's THIRD SPEECH.] 

Gantlcvien Moderators and Gentlemen and Ladies.^ Fellow 

Citizens: 

There are some things which have fallen from my broth- 
er in his last remarks which demand a brief and respectful 
notice. You will recollect what I advanced showing that 
slaves are incapable of marriage by statute and by practice : 
that their children are illegitimate in law and in fact: incapa- 
ble of taking by will, or by descent; and that they are held 
and regarded as illegitimate persons. I might have added 
that the great mjijarity have not even the form of marriage, and 



ON SLAVERY. 61 

when there is the form, (for there are southern clergymen 
who are willing to mitigate the horrors of slavery) some 
ministers add a clause in the marriage service which shows 
that they are not married. Rev. Mr. Smith, of Sumpter coun- 
ty, Ala., informed me that when he married slaves, instead 
of pronouncing the clause " until death you do part," that 
he added, " until death or some other cause beyond your con- 
troiy I might also have added that one Baptist association 
formally decided that a slave may lawfully have several 
-v^rives: — That if a slave is sold off a plantation ten, twenty, or 
thirty miles or more, and takes another woman, it shall not in- 
injure his standing in the Baptist church. Now what did my 
friend say in reply 1 I confess I was pained to hear such re- 
marks fall from such a gentleman. I was sorry, not particular- 
ly in reference to this debate, but for the sake of the public mor- 
als. He asked me to point to the place in the Bible where 
the recognition of the civil law was made necessary to the 
validity of marriage. Can it be that he means to teach that 
a man and a woman may meet in a private place and marry 
each other by the law of God ; and they who do thus are 
married ? 

Gentlemen, if I am asked, to point to the text requiring the 
recoo-nition of the civil law to marriage ; I point to the 
whole Bible practice of marriage, from Samson downward. 
The Jews of all nations, were the most ceremonious observ- 
ers of the outward forms of marriage. Samson had a mar- 
riao-e feast of seven days, at the house of the bride, and a 
solemn procession at the close, like that alluded to by Christ 
in the parable of the virgins. Such were some of the Ibrmal 
outward recognitions of eastern marriages. I never heard 
before; I hope I shall never again hear from Presbyterian 
lips ; that the recognition of the civil law was not necessary 
to constitute marriage. Joseph me*ets Betsey, some where, 
at some time or other and marries her — and that is all, accor- 
ding to the principle of my brother's reply, which was re- 
quisite to make them one I 

One or two other remarks of his require notice. 



62 DISCUSSION 

He tells us in his printed discourse, which, being issued 
since it was agreed upon, is a part of this debate ; and he 
tells us, also, orally, itcrum iierumque; that the church- 
courts will regulate and correct all the ills of slavery. If 
any tiling is done amiss just go to a southern church-sessiou 
— that immaculate umpire — and all will be healed, mended 
and remedied. Take slavery before a Presbyterian session 
and that will plaster it up, bleach it aU white, and sweep 
away all its abuses by the magic of its wand. 

■yVell : — the only thing I have to say in reply, is to give 
the testimony of Rev. James Smylie (who belongs, I believe, 
to the same ecclesiastical organization with brother Rice) 
who states over his own signature, not as a doctrine, but as 
a fact ; that three-fourths of all the Presbyterians, in eleven 
States '^hold slaves for gain.'" And these are the church- 
courts to which he sends us to reform the abuses of slavery ! 
He sends us to elders who "hold slaves for gain" to redress 
the evils of slave-holding As an example of what might be 
expected of such courts, I will relate a fact which was a com- 
mon story in the newspapers of the day several years ago, 
which was as follows : Richard, a sexton of a Presbyterian 
church (in Danville, I think) who was a colored man and mem- 
ber of tire church, was sold by his brother in the same com- 
munion, away from his wife and four small children, into Jes- 
samine county. There was no church action heard of on 
that account. Another case is that of the Rev. Dr. Stiles, 
then of Kentucky, now of Virginia, who was stated in the 
papers of the day, to have sold eight slaves, just before he 
left Kentucky, to attend the last triennial Assembly in Phil- 
adelphia. So far from disgracing him, that Assembly (with 
which I am connected, perhaps, until after its next meeting) 
appointed him one of three to administer the sacrament of 
the Lord's supper. Such are the men who compose the 
church-courts, to which my friend would send us to reform 
the abuses of slavery. Further, in 1818, the General As- 
sembly adopted a rule, in reference to the subject, declaring 
it to be the duty of Christians to instruct their slaves, pre- 



ON SLAVERY. 63 

pdre them for emancipation, and labor for the destruction of 
slavery, throughout Christendom. (See Minutes of 1818.) 

The Rev. J. D. Paxton, of Virginia, well known by his 
"letters from Palestine," which were published in this city, 
undertook to practice upon this injunction. He instructed 
his slaves, and finally set them free. This was before the 
date of abolitionism proper, which began in 1832, in a print- 
ing office in Boston, where a society was formed, consisting 
of twelve men. While that good man was thus conscien- 
tiously obeying the law of the church, he was slandered as 
a dangerous fanatic, and eventually driven from his church 
into a free State, for no offence whatever but what he had 
given in emancipating his slaves. 

This w^as the only case I have heard of, where any attempt 
was made to obey the injunction of the Assembly of 1818. 
I must say, therefore, that it is not entirely fair for a gentle- 
man as well informed on this subject as my friend, to say to 
this audience that the southern church-courts will forthwith, 
on application, redress all the abuses of slaverj^, when he 
must know that the church has never disciplined the first 
man for such, ofiences. 

Exception was taken to my affirmation, that slavery has not 
improved — that it was always the same in all ages, and coun- 
tries of the world — in Rome, in Greece, in Gaul, in Britain, 
and in America: — and that the 'projperty-holdin.g of men is a 
principle which is not susceptible of amelioration. My 
friend insists, on the contrary, that slavery has improved, and 
that what I advanced on that head is without proof In re- 
ply, I have only to state, that in the speech of Hon. Joshua 
R. Giddings, in the House of Representatives, on the Flor- 
ida w^ar, there is an abundance of* documentary proof, that 
the runaway negroes who had taken refuge in Florida, 
actually fought for the privilege of remaining slaves to In- 
dian savages, ratlier than go back and be slaves to the w^hites. 
This is a perfect illustration of the point which I made, viz : 
that as civilization advances, the burdens of civil society in- 
crease, and the task of the slave grows heavier in proportion. 



64 DISCUSSION 

There are ten thousand comforts, conveniences and luxuries 
required in a civilized state of society, which were unknown 
to the barbarous period. The burdened class, therefore, be- 
comes more oppressed. Hence, it was, that those Florida 
fugitives accounted slavery among- the Indians, as liberty, 
in comparison with slavery to the whites. 

I have to notice one thing more before I proceed. My 
friend has complained repeatedly of the course I have thought 
proper to take in this argument. I recollect, however, that 
my friend said, that though he felt it his duty to complain 
of my course, in order to expose the unfairness of it, yet he 
was rather pleased than angry with it : to give him the vic- 
tory over me he could wish me to pursue no other, etc. 

I wish to say simply, in reply, that my object in coming 
here is not to gain a victory over Dr. Rice. I desire no 
victory over him. I do not wish to deprive him of one sprig 
of the laurels which he may acquire in his crusade to estab- 
lish the doctrine that slave-holding is not sin. 

But I have come here, prepared to discuss this subject of 
slavery, so that it will stay discussed. I have attended to 
the subject and prepared myself as well as I am able. I 
should {lot have treated you Avith proper respect, had I not. 
I, for one, have not invited you here to regale you with feats 
of logical skill, w^ith tricks of polemicism and syllogism. 
I have marked out a consecutive train of thought, bear- 
ing on the point in debate, and I now regret that I did not 
furnish him with a syllabus of my whole argument when 
we begun. I mean to linger upon the subject of slavery 
till I am convinced that we all perceive distinctly Avhat 
slave-holding is. I will then go to the word of God, and 
with his help, ascertain whether it is right or wrong. This, 
as the affirmant in this debate, I suppose it is my right to 
do ; and I hope, meantime, my brother will address himself 
to disprove my sentiments, and abstain from complaint, as if 
I was departing from the just and ordinary rules of debate. 

My desire is, so to settle this question of the sinfulness of 
slavery, that your minds will be at rest upon it. 



ON SLAVERY. 65 

Now, their main grand position is, that slavery and slave- 
holding are not in themselves sinful, but that many laws, 
regulating slavery, are cruel and unjust: — that all the evil 
lies in these cruel laws. 

Now, I wish to show that this ground of theirs is simply 
no ground : — rather it is a yielding of the whole ground. 
For slavery is a thing created by these very laws. And if 
the laws are admitted to be cruel and sinful, then slavery, 
the product of those laws, is likewise sinful. Slavery is not 
a natural relation. It is the creature of laws. Repeal the 
slave laws and you repeal slavery. Such is the late decision 
of the Hon. John McLean, of this city: so all the jurists. 
So Chief Justice Shaw, of Massachusetts, in the case of the 
slave child "Med": that slavery is against nature, the 
creation of positive law, so that if a slave goes beyond the 
slave code's jurisdiction, with the consent of his master, that 
fact frees him. 

I therefore put it to every legal mind in the audience, 
whether the pretence of opposing the laws regulating slavery, 
while justifying slave-holding, can be anything but pretence. 
Repeal those laws and what becomes of slavery? It per- 
ishes with the laws which give it being and birth. 

Yet my brother, who is here to defend slave-holding, as 
sinless, tells us he is opposed to the cruel laws regulating 
slavery. If he is, why not tell us what laws he opposes? 
If he is sincere, let him specify the iniquitous statutes, and 
utter an honest and open condemnation of them. But no — 
this is precisely what he will not do. He glides delicately 
over these laws, siccis pedibus — dry-shod. Does he condemn 
the laws which require sheriffs to put up and sell the 
slaves of deceased masters, for a division among heirs; or 
slaves of living masters, to satisfy a judgment: does he con- 
demn those statutes, which sell men, women and children, to 
the highest bidder, irrespective of family ties ? If so, let him 
say it, and let that go to Kentucky. Thus, let him pass 
through the whole slave code, put his finger upon each 
statute, and condemn it as sinful, and let that go to Ken-^ 



66 DISCUSSION 

tucky ; and see what thanks he will get for defending slave- 
ry, while he condemns its laws'? No: this he will never 
do. He knows the Kentuckians are not to be imposed upon 
thus. And I rest the matter here in clear sun-light. Slavery 
being the creature of the laws ; the laws being repealed, re- 
peals slavery. And admitting the cruelty of the laws, he 
admits the sinfulness of the thing itself, which is created by 
them. And for a man to say that he is opposed to the cruel 
slave laws, and not to slavery itself, is to utter the most palpa- 
ble solecism of which language is capable. 

But, leaving my opponent, I wish to give you half an 
hour's argument on this very point, to show you that slavery 
in law is slavery in fact; — that every slave is held by the 
noose of the chattel statute ; and therefore to pretend oppo- 
sition to the laws, while defending slave-holding, is simply 
absurd. 

My first proposition (already adverted to) is, that the most 
cruel of all slave laws is the law which makes men slaves. 

I put it to your plain understandings as men, whether it 
be not so ; whether this view is, as he says, an idiosyncrasy 
in me, and that my common sense is uncommon 1 He 
declares slave-holding in itself to be sinless ; but the laws 
regulating slavery, to be unjust and cruel. Now, of two 
States- let one adopt the South Carolina law, making 
human beings property. Take but this one law, and let it 
have free course and full application, so that when the stat- 
ute comes to your house, it makes you all property — hus- 
band, wife and child — so that whether you are permitted to 
remain together until morning, depends not upon your own 
wills, but upon the will of your master. Let this single 
statute be the sole slave law in that State. 

Now, let another State adopt every slav^e law in the code, 
excepting this one. I ask you, to which of these States 
would you go to live ? Would you go where the law just 
makes yourself, wife and children, property? or would you 
go where the laws forbid you to read, to take by will, etc., 
etc., etc., but do not make you property? Which would 



ON SLA"VrERY. C7 

you clioose as a place of residence 7 I aver that you would 
go where you would be a man, though persecuted and 
afflicted, rather than go where you are made a brute on 
sight. Now I am not under the necessity of stating the 
case so strongly as this. Instead of comparing the chat- 
tel izing statute with all the rest, take any 07ie law which he 
calls cruel, and compare it with this ; and if the law which 
makes the slave be equally cruel, slave-holding is sin. Say 
that in Indiana, laborers are forbidden to read and write ; 
but in Illinois, they are simply made chattels; which law 
would be the most cruel ? But Dr. Rice admits the cruelty 
of the law forbidding to read ; and reason and nature pro- 
claims the other more so. If, therefore, my brother is a 
fair-minded and Christian man, honestly opposed to those 
less cruel laws ; if he values his consistency a straw, he 
will openly confess himself an abolitionist — that he hates 
slavery from his heart's core, and we will go out and lecture 
together against oppression. If he will not, I regret it, and 
that is all I can say. 

I will speak farther in this behalf For this moral cita- 
del of slavery, this main idea of the sinlessness of slavery, 
w'ith the sinfulness of its laws, meets us, in some form, at 
every turn and step of this argument. 

He says, in his last General Assembly's Report, w^hose 
authorship he acknowledges, "The question between us and 
the abolitionists, is, not whether the laws by which, in the 
several States, slavery is regulated, are just and righteous. 
Many of them are sadly defective, and some of them are 
oppressive and unjust in a high degree." — Rice's Lec- 
tures^ p. 12. 

Observe here, the milk and sugar expression, "many" 
(of these dishumanizing statutes) " are sadly defective." 
Surely, this is handling slavery with silk gloves. 

This idea, that the laws of slavery are sinful, but that 
slavery is not sinful, is the last strong-hold of the slave- 
holders. But, by the blessing of God, this rampart shall 
not cover their retreat. The covering is too narrow where- 



53 DISSCUSSION 

with to wrap them, and the bed too short for their repose. 
These very laws art slavery in fact ; and unless his object 
is to throw dust in your eyes, he cannot help acknowledging 
it. I prove it, thus: — The Legislatures of these States hold 
their sessions annually or biennially, and these cruel laws, 
which they make, are laws which they mean to use. This 
Mississippi code, which I have before me, shows how the 
slave codes are made. They consist of laws enacted from 
time to time, by the several Legislatures. Laws and parts 
of laws have from time to time been repealed — showing 
ihat the laws which do remain, are living laws, and not 
dead ; that they are enforced upon the person of the slave. 
And these laws are made to enforce the chattel principle^ 
which he says is not a wrong principle. Now I contend 
that it is sinful ; because these cruel laws, made to regulate 
slavery, are made necessary by the first law, which makes 
man property ; and are included in it. If there be any legal 
gentleman here, (and I see several,) he will tell you that any 
grant of power by the Legislature always includes the means 
and the power to enforce it. For example — a law is passed 
at Columbus, by the Legislature, incorporating an Orphan 
Asylum, and authorizing trustees to hold the property. 
The charter does not read thus : — We incorporate A, B, and 
C, to establish an Orphan Asylum, and we hereby declare 
that John Dix shall carry the hod, and Bill Dixon shall burn 
the brick, and Jedediah Burch shall lay them. But the first 
law includes all the powers necessary to its proper execution; 
Now my friend comes before that Presence in which we 
all shall stand at judgment, and tells Him and us that he 
honestly believes that slavery is not sinful, but that the laws 
regulating it are cruel and unjust. Now I aver that 
because slavery includes these cruel laws and makes them 
necessary, therefore it is, in itself, sinful and cruel. Besides, 
it strikes me as utterly absurd., to oppose the laws regulating 
silvery, after conceding, as sinless, the right to hold slaves. 
Why, after you have struck down my manhood, by making 
me a slave, by a law which regards my wife and my babes 



ON SLA\"ERY. 69 

as cattle and swine ; after you have stolen the fire of my 
being, you may freely trample on the cinders that are left. 
Give me back my humanity, or do what you will with the 
rest. I care not how much whipping-, and lacerating, and 
burning you inflict ; the more the better, since it will be the 
sooner over. 

Gentlemen ; you are not, you cannot, be insensible to this 
truth : nor could my brother be, were it not for the searing, 
petrifying influence of long familiarity with slavery. — 
Southern men may be, many, perhaps are, better than m}^- 
self But he must be seared and callous who does not see 
that the law which makes slavery, is more cruel than that 
which reofulates it. 

Let me tell you, fellow citizens, when they have cannon- 
ized slave-holding as sinless, and set it up in the church of 
God ; when they have persuaded us that they have God's 
warrant for the property-holding of man^ be he colored or 
white ; for keeping him in slavery, because his ancestors 
were enslaved by others; seizing his infants for slaves as 
soon as born ; — Oh 1 sirs, they well know that all the rest of 
slavery follows. They know that the property power, by 
fatal necessity, draws every other slave law after it ! Does 
not the gentleman know that if the State of Indiana, or any 
other State, should enact and enforce a law makinsr its la- 
borers property, that all the other laws of slavery would fol- 
low of course ? Aye ; my friend knows, and God knows, 
that such is the quality of human nature, that w^hen you 
have put a bridle in the mouth, and a saddle upon the back, 
of one man, and vaulted another into the saddle, with w^hip 
in hand, and spur on heel, and placed the reins fully within 
the gripe of the rider, it is but insulting misery to cry — 
"Pray, sir, don't use him as a horse." He is property. — 
You have made him property ; and he will be used as prop- 
erty. 

So the slave-holders understand this matter, and they ask 
no better champion than Dr. Rice. Go read his argument 
at the evening slave-quarter ; at the cotton-giu ; at the auc- 



70 DISCUSSION 

tion stand, in the Exchange Coffee House in New Orleans ; 
and, wherever heard, it will be greeted by the slave-holder 
with triumph, and by his slaves with despair. " Give us 
God's permission to own men," say the holders, and we will 
take care of the rest. 

Mark well, I beseech you, the inconsistency and absurdity 
of his position. He is opposed to the slavery-regulating 
laws, yet justifies as sinless the law which creates that very 
slavery, for regulating which, he condemns other laws as 
cruel : as if to regulate were worse than to create it. Now, 
as a matter of fact, all the other laws are made to carry out 
the chattel principle — the property-holding law. I read from 
the Mississippi code: " TFAe?i a?nj sheriffs or other officer^ 
shall serve an attachment upon slaves^ horses, or other live 
stockr &c. The law goes on to give leave to provide food, 
and charo^e it upon the execution. Now, ah uno disce omnes. 
(holding up the statutes.) Every other slave statute is, like 
this, a mere carrying out of the property-holding power. 

Sheriffs' advertisements, also, show that slaves are held in 
fact as property. I recollect that the daughter of a southern 
judge, from South Carolina, whom I met in Cherry street, 
Philadelphia, said that she had a young slave girl as a per- 
sonal servant, whom, by stealth, she had taught to read. — 
She treated her kindly, and supposed her happy. Coming 
unexpectedly into the room one day, where the girl was, she 
was surprised to find her in tears. "What has happened," 
said she '• that you are sobbing so?" The girl pointed with 
her finger, to a newspaper, which she had been reading, 
wliere slaves were advertised to be sold with some hogs. — 
" Why, mistress," said she, " they put us on a level with the 
sv/ine." Now, is not the slavery of the statute the slavery of 
fact? This girl had suffered no cruel usage, yet was she not 
a chattel ? How absurd is this pretence of condemning cruel 
slave laws, and justifying slavery, which is more cruel. 

Again: That legal slavery is the actual slavery, is evi- 
dent from the fact that the laws made to guard the owner's 



ON SLAVERY. 71 

right of property in the slave, provide for their own execu- 
tion, while those which seem to protect the slave, do not. 

My argument is this: — Because slavery in law is slavery 
in fact, he who condemns the law, must, to be consistent, 
condemn the thing. Now the laws which guard and 
enforce the owner's right of property in slaves, provide 
means for their own execution, by rewarding prosecutors, 
informers, and slave-catchers. But there is no such pro- 
vision to enforce the laws made to prevent cruelty to the 
slaves. Thus the Mississippi code gives to a Choctaw 
Indian fifteen dollars for catching a runaway, and fifteen 
dollars to the United States Indian Agent who brings him 
in. — Alden ^ Van Hoesen, chap. 92, sect 38. The United 
States Agent is made the catch-pole, or devil's-paw, (par- 
don the expression, ) of the State Legislature, and paid fifteen 
dollars for bringing home a fugitive negro, betrayed by an 
Indian. So there is a law, that if you allow a slave to set 
up type, you are fined ten dollars. And if the sheriff does 
not enforce this law, he is fined fifty dollars — one-half to 
the prosecutor, and the other to the county. Thus the laws 
which are made for the master, oil their own wheels. 

Another law gives the patroi (and the patrol are all ^vho 
are able to bear arms) six dollars each, for taking up negroes 
found abroad without a pass, and whipping them fifteen 
lashes. — Alden S^ Van Hoesen, chap. 83, sec. 3. But if the 
patrol turns angel, (I never can think of my friend's Hagar 
case without laughing,) and brings in an outlying slave, the 
law gives him thirty dollars. — A. i^ V. H., chap. 92, sec. 36. 

But there is nothing to insure the enforcement of the law 
professing to be for the slave's protection. [Reads 3Iiss. 
code. Digest, 755, sec. 44, which enacts that no cruel or unu- 
sual punishment shall be inflicted on the slave.] ^^UnusuaV^ 
means, of course, that the punishment must transcend and 
outrage public opinion in the neighborhood. This law pays 
no informer, or prosecutor, or costs of suit, but stands on the 
statute book like a broken tea-cup, wdth the whole side to- 
wards the front of the shelf — for §how, and not for uses. 



72 DISCUSSION J 

But without this, its vagueness would destroy it. It leaves 
the cruelty of slave-punishments to be determined by cus- 
tom and use: a curious way to define punishment And then, 
if any man is rich and bold enough to prosecute the master 
to conviction, the slave is taken from one master, and sold to 
another. 

By this transaction his miseiy may or may not be abated. 
It may but take him, like the fox in the fable, from flies that 
are full, to deliver him to flies that are empty. He may get a 
better master, and he may a worse. It certainly takes the 
slave from a master to whose passions he is accustomed, and 
delivers him over to one with whose temper he is unac- 
quainted ; and " the price obtained for his sale shall be paid 
over to his master from whom he is taken." There is noth- 
inf^ reserved to pay the costs, or the prosecutor, or expenses 
of the suit. The protection of the slave is, therefore, left to 
the precarious and gratuitous sympathy of fallen human na- 
ture ! This is the slave's actual condition. Is it sin to hold 
him in it? 

But again. It is plain that slavery in law is slavery in 
fact, from the circumstance that the penal code of slave States^ 
which is designed for moi, does not take effect on slaves. A 
law of Mississippi declares, that the criminal code shall not 
be so construed as to extend to slaves. A similar law exists 
in Kentucky, passed in 1802. It is enacted that, "when pun- 
ishment for any offence shall be confinement in the peniten- 
tiar}'-, such punishment shall be considered as applicable to 
free persons only." 

Thus the slave is so far completely imbruted as not even 
to be punished with men for his crimes. But, does he there- 
fore escape punishment? By no means. There is another 
penal code, viz: that executed upon mischievous brutes, whose 
penalties are whipping, selling, and killing ; and by this code 
is discipline dealt out to slaves! I do not say it is actually 
made lawful to kill slaves. Excepting fugitives who resist, 
or will not stop when hailed, it is unlawful. But I say that 
the slave is left under the penal code applicable to incorrigi- 



ON SLAVERY. 73 

ble brutes, whom men do whip, and sell, and kill. For slaves 
there is a slave law — a law suited to men who are advertised 
and sold with swine. This is degradation complete. Stript 
of even the privilege of being punished as men. They are 
not governed as if they were men : and, if the slave is a man, 
no tl mks are due to slavery for it. So far as it can, it dishu- 
mai i€s and imbrutes him. [Time expired. 



[mr. rice's third speech.] 

^' atlemen Mod,erators and Fellow Citizens: 

1 certainly do not desire, that any who hold views on this 
iubject in accordance with mine, should give expression to 
their feelings of approbation. I will not, however, find 
fault with those who differ from me, for pursuing this course. 
Such manifestations may be necessary to supply the gentle- 
man's lack of argument. He has now spoken two and a 
half hours for the purpose of proving, that slave-holding is 
in itself sinful ; he and I agree that the Bible is the only 
rule by which any thing can be proved sinful ; and yet 
during the two and a half hours he has made not one refer- 
ence to that infallible rule ! Two and a half hours to prove 
by a certain rule the sinfulness of a relation, without one 
reference to the rule ! Surely the gentleman stands in need 
of the applause of his friends. Thus far he has been em- 
ployed in telling us what slave-holding is. What a mys- 
tery it must be ! How incomprehensible ! Nor does it 
appear, that he has yet completed his description or defi- 
nition of it. Perhaps he will occupy another half hour on 
this point. If it requires so long a time to tell what slave- 
holding is, how long will it require to prove it sinful ? 

For the present, I will follow the gentleman in his erratic 
course. Slave-holding, if we are to believe him, is in itself 
a most abominable thing. The question very naturally 
arises — if it be such as he has described it, why debate the 
question before us at all? One would think, it is only 



74 DISCUSSION 

necessary to state what it is, to cause every decent man to 
loathe it. Then why discuss it ? Why not simply state 
what it is, and go home? One of two things is true: either 
the relation of master and slave is not in itself what the gen- 
tleman represents it, or his friends were guilty of great folly 
in challenging me to the discussion of it. If the people are 
so besotted as not to see at a glance its detestable character, 
there is no use in debating it. 

The gentleman repeats the assertion, that the marriage 
relation cannot exist among slaves ; and he tells of a 
Mr. S., who, in going through a marriage ceremony for 
them, after the words, " till separated by death," added, " or 
some other cause beyond your control." In most cases, he 
tells us, there is not even the form of marriage. How has 
he ascertained this fact 1 Admitting it true, does it follow 
that there is no valid marriage among slaves ? Will the 
gentleman tell us what particular form of marriage was pre- 
scribed for the Jews ? With what ceremonies were Isaac 
and Rebecca married? Where in the Scriptures is any par- 
ticular formulary prescribed ? and what officer is designated 
to solemnize marriage? Every one acquainted with the 
Bible, knows that no particular ceremonies are required, 
and no officer appointed to solemnize marriage. 

But he appeals to the ceremonies at the marriage of Sam- 
son, who had a procession and a feast of seven days. Why 
not go to an earlier period, and inform us by what ceremo- 
nies the old patriarchs were married? I presume, he will 
not deny, that their marriages were valid. But if all the 
ceremonies connected with ►Samson'*s marriage, are essential 
to tile validity of the relation, I fear that very few of us are 
validly married ; for not many, it is presumed, had a pro- 
cession and a feast of seven days. Mr. B. is quite scandal- 
ized that I should deny the necessity of any particular forms 
or ceremonies to the validity of marriage. I have called 
for the Bible law on the subject; and he has not yet pro- 
duced it ; and Paul says, " Where there is no law, there is 
no transgression." The gentleman's argument i^, that be- 



ON SLAVERY. 75 

cause the laws of the slave-holding States do not recognize 
the marriage of slaves, their marriage is not valid, and their 
children are illegitimate. The truth of this proposition I 
deny; because the Bible (and marriage is a divine institu- 
tion) nowhere makes the recognition of the civil law essen- 
tial to marriage. I assert, that the marriage of slaves is, in 
God's law, as valid as that of their owners , and it is as truly 
a violation of that law to separate the former, as the latter. 
But all this is aside from the question, whether the relation 
between master and slave is in itself sinful . 

The gentleman has twice spoken of my Lectures on 
Slavery as a part of this d-ebate^ and as a kind of forestallino- 
of public sentiment. Those Lectures, when delivered, were 
designed for publication ; and the propriety of publishino- 
them became still more apparent, in consequence of the man- 
ner in which they were misrepresented and caricatured by- 
certain editors of abolitionist papers in this city. I presume 
it will scarcely be questioned, that I had the right to publish 
them. Moreover, their publication placed before Mr. B. 
my arguments, and afforded him a fair opportunity to be 
fully prepared to refute them. He ought not, therefore, to 
complain. 

Mr. Smylie, he says, is competent to testify to the fact, that 
two-thirds of the professors of religion in the slave-holding 
States, hold slaves for the sake of gain. I am at a loss to 
know how any man can be competent to bear testimony con- 
cerning the motives of all those persons. Doubtless, there 
are many masters whose sole object is gain ; but it is not 
true, that professing Christians generally traffic in slaves for 
gain. To say so, would be to slander the church of Christ. 

He tells a story concerning a sexton of the Presbyterian 
church in Danville, Ky., who was sold by his master, a 
member of the church, away from his wife, into Jessamine 
county. The man's name was Richard. I have had some 
acquaintance in Danville ; and I do not remember to have 
heard of this Richard, or of any such occurrence. By the 
way, Jessamine county is not very far from Danville. I 



76 DISCUSSION 

should like to have some proof of the truth of this story, I 
do not believe it ; but if such a thing has occurred, and if 
the session of the church knew it, and neglected to call the 
master to account, let them be held responsible. It is ad- 
mitted, that in many churches the discipline is far too lax ; 
and that many cases of improper conduct pass unnoticed, 
because not brought before the church sessions. 

As to the story related by the gentleman concerning the 
Rev. J. C. Stiles, that on his way to the New-School Gene- 
ral Assembly he sold eight slaves, and that so far from 
being disgraced by such conduct, he was appointed to ad- 
minister the Lord's supper to that assembly, I will say — 
first, that the gentleman pays a very poor compliment to his 
general assembly — that body which possesses abundantly 
" the New-England spirit," which Professor Stowe says, we 
have driven from our church. Second, I know Mr. Stiles 
well enough to deny, that he ever sold slaves where they 
did not wish to live. It may be, that when he removed to 
Virginia, he sold some ; but if he did, it was for the pur- 
pose of leaving them with their families ; and they -were 
sold to masters of their own choosing. So I believe. 

A precisely similar publication concerning the Rev. S. K. 
Snead, went the rounds of the abolitionist prints, some years 
since ; though Mr. Snead was then an anti-slavery man, if 
not an abolitionist. He was charged with the cruel treat- 
ment of certain slaves that fell into his hands. And a writer 
for a religious paper in Scotland, who professed to know 
what he asserted, published as a fact, that in the slave-hold- 
ing States ministers could, and did, with credit to themselves, 
choose the Sabbath for inflicting punishment on their slaves, 
in order to save time ; that they would leave their victims 
tied to the whipping-post, go to the house of God and preach, 
and administer the Lord's supper, then return and resume 
their fiendish work ! A more outrageous slander never 
was published to the world. Such are the slanderous tales 
by which the claims of abolitionism are sought to be sus- 
tained. 



ON SLAVERY. 77 

The gentleman says, that the General Assembly of 1818 
passed a law requiring the members of tlie churches under 
their care, to instruct their slaves and prepare them for free- 
dom, as soon as prudence would permit their manum.ission ; 
that Rev. J. D. Paxton, then of Virginia, in obedience to this 
order of the Assembly, instructed and finally liberated his 
slaves ; and in consequence of this, he was abused and slan- 
dered, and was obliged to leave his church and go to a free 
State. The whole of this statement is untrue. In the first 
place, the General Assembly passed no law of the kind. 
That body recommended to their members to instruct their 
slaves with a view to their emancipation, so soon as providen- 
tially a door could be opened for their freedom ; but they 
passed no laiv. In the next place, it is not true, that Mr. Pax- 
ton was slandered, abused, and compelled to leave his church 
because he instructed and liberated his slaves. He had some 
difficulty with his church, in consequence of some discourses 
on the subject of slavery^ the precise character of which I 
do not recollect ; and in consequence of difficulties growincr 
out of those discourses, he left his church and removed to 
Kentucky, The gentleman says this was the only instance 
in which the law of the church was complied with. Now 
the fact is notorious, that it is common for Presbyterians to 
give religious instruction to their slaves, and to emancipate 
ihem, and that no one objects to it. 

But instead of the appeal to the word of God, which we 
had a right to expect from a minister of the gospel, discussing 
a great moral question, we are entertained by stories such as 
these, the only tendency of which is, by slandering and ag- 
gravating slave-holders, to rivet the chains upon the slaves, 
and, to aggravate all the evils of their condition ! As if men 
were to be induced to free their slaves by being pelted with 
rotten eggs ! If he is resolved to pursue such a course, it is 
to be hoped that he will, at least, prove the facts he asserts. I 
pledge myself to prove every fact I may have occasion to 
state, should he call any one of them in question. 



78 DISCUSSION 

Mr. Giddlng-s, he says, produced documentary evidence, 
that the fugitive slaves in Florida preferred being slaves to 
the Indians to returning to their white masters. Thus he 
would prove that the condition of the slaves is growing worse. 
We should like to sec this documentary evidence. I shall 
believe the assertion when I see it ; not before. I protest 
against the attempt to prove facts by documentary evidence, 
which Mr. B. cannot produce ; especially since it is the uni- 
form testimony of all who have taken the pains to inform 
themselves, that the condition of the slaves has been greatly 
improved throughout the slave States within a few 3rears, and 
that it is still being improved. One of the most humane laws 
relative to slavery was passed by the Kentucky Legislature, 1 
think, not more than four or five years ago, viz. : that which 
takes a slave from a cruel master, and places him in better 
hands. Any individual, knowing that a master treats his 
slave cruelly, or fails to supply him with sufficient food and 
raiment, can bring suit against the master, who, if the char- 
ges be proved, is obliged to pay all the costs of the suit. Nor 
would any reproach attach to a person instituting suit in such 
a case. On the contrary, no man can treat his slaves cruelly 
in Kentucky, without being scorned by decent men. There 
are cruel masters, doubtless, in all the slave States ; and so 
there are everywhere men who treat their wives and children 
cruelly. By the way, I wonder if this Mr. Giddings is the 
gentleman who, for improper conduct, was expelled from 
Congress. 

The gentleman tells us, that, as civilization advances, the 
labors of the slaves are more oppressive. This is news to 
me. I had supposed that the useful discoveries of the pre- 
sent age, were labor-saving machines. I did not know, that 
they tended only to increase the burdens of the laboring 
classes. 

My friend does not like my speaking of his lack of argu- 
ments in support of his proposition. I should really be glad to 
hear him mention any one argument he has adduced to prove 
slave-holding in itself sinful. In what single instance has 



ON SLAVERY. 79 

he appealed to any rule acknowledged by us as authoritative, 
to prove this proposition? 

But he contends that the relation between master and 
slave is the creature of law ; and he calls on me to say what 
laws I consider cruel. I am prepared to do so, so soon as he 
will tell us what laws are essential to the relation. He has 
mentioned a number of oppressive laws, such as place slaves, 
as he thinks, on a level with brutes. Now will he have the 
goodness to tell us which of those laws are essential to the 
relation of master and slave? For we are discussing sim- 
ply the morahty of the relation in itself considered. Does 
he not know, that there are, and ever have been, cruel laws 
regulating other relations which in themselves are not sinful ? 
Why does he distinguish between the relations and the par- 
ticular laws in all other cases, except the one in hand ? 

He has appealed strongly to the sympathies of the audi- 
ence, by telling of the girl who was found weeping bitterly, 
because she saw slaves advertised in connection with swine. 
Wonder if she would not have wept as bitterly, had she read 
the following passage of Scripture, in which Abraham's 
pious servant gives to Laban an account of his master's 
wealth : " And the Lord hath blessed my master greatly, 
and he is become great ; and he hath given him flocks, and 
herds, and silver, and goX^^and men-servants, and maid-scr- 
vajits, and camels and assts^ — Ccw. xxiv. 35. Men-servants 
and maid-servants are found precisely in a similar connec- 
tion in the first chapter of Job. If you say, these are hired 
servants, you prove that the patriarch placed even these 
amongst brutes ! The best plan for the abolitionists would 
be to denounce the Bible at once, and declare in favor of 
infidelity ! 

But let me also appeal to your sympathies. Go to Hin- 
dostan, and see the wife made the degraded slave of the hus- 
band. She dares not sit in her husband's presence, but must 
rise and stand. She is considered as a creature without a soul; 
and the law forbids her to read the sacred books. Behold her 
fastened on the funeral pile of her deceased husband, to be con- 



so DISCUSSION 

sumed with his dead body ! All these cruelties grow out of her 
relation to her husband, as that relation is established and rec- 
Qo-nized by the law. Shall I stand up here, and assert, that all 
the oppression and cruelty practiced upon wives in Hindos- 
tan or elsewhere, are part and parcel of the conjugal relation, 
and that therefore it is in itself sinful ? I might say so with 
as much truth and propriety, as my friend can assert, that all 
the oppressive laws by which slavery is regulated, and all the 
cruel treatment of slaves, are part and parcel of the relation 
between master and slave, and that therefore it is in itself sin- 
ful. This mode of reasoning is perfectly absurd, and is never 
admitted in regard to any other relation. I ask the gentleman 
whether masters are obliged to treat their slaves as badly as 
the law permits ? Is there a law in Mississippi or in any State, 
requiring the master to deny the slave sufficient food and 
raiment, or to separate husband and wife ? But you say the 
law permits cruelty. So I say, the law permits the husband 
to maltreat his wife. Does it follow, that every husband is 
chargeable with all the cruelty towards his wife, which the 
law permits? It must be so upon the principle on which the 
gentleman argues, viz.: that the slave-holder is chargeable 
with all the cruelty, which the law permits him to exercise 
toward his slaves. Every one is obliged to see the absurdity 
of this principle. Hundreds and thousands of masters, guided 
by God's law, avoid all such cruelty, and treat their slaves 
with uniform kindness. Of course, if Mr. B.'s logic is worth 
any thing, they are not slaves. Will he please to inform us 
whether cruel treatment is essential to the relation of master 
and slave? If it is not, why do we hear so much from him 
on this subject? If cruelty is not essential to the relation, 
then the relation may exist without it. Then why does he so 
constantly harp upon the cruelties practiced by wicked men, 
as if they were of the essence of the relation ? But if he 
asserts, that such cruelties are essential to the relation of mas- 
ter and slave ; I reply, that the members of the Presbyterian 
church are forbidden by the law of the church to treat their 
servants cruelly ; and therefore they, not being guilty, are not 



ON SLAITRY. 81 

slave-holders. So that his argument fails, if we take it either 
way. If cruelty is not essential to the relation, his declama- 
tion about cruelty proves nothing against it ; if it is, our mem- 
bers are not slave-holders, and therefore are not exposed to his 
denunciations. Let the gentleman, then, denounce the cru- 
elty practiced by wicked men, and let the relation alone ; or 
let him admit, that those masters who are not cruel, are not 
slave-holders. 

But, says Mr. B., (by way of exciting your sympathies,) 
wben you make a man a slave, you have treated him as cru- 
elly as possible. The law which makes him a slave, is of 
ail lav/s the most cruel. The question before us, is not 
whether it is sinful to reduce a free man to a state of slavery. 
The question is concerning the duty of masters to a class of 
people, unrighteously enslaved by others. How far are 
they bound to manumit them at once without regard to cir- 
cumstances? Can they be immediately liberated, consistent- 
ly with their own good, or with the safety of society? This 
is the question. And let it be remarked, that, although those 
who enslaved the Africans, were by no means guiltless, yet 
there is no slave in America, who would not greatly prefer 
being a slave here, to being placed in the condition in which 
his fathers were, and in which he would have been in Africa. 
The slaves, therefore, have been more benefitted than injur- 
ed by their removal to this country ; and the question now 
arises — how far are masters bound, without regard to cir- 
cumstances, immediately to give them their liberty? 

Suppose all the slave-holding States were disposed, imme- 
diately, to abolish slavery; would the condition of the 
slaves be thereby improved ? It is, in my opinion, a very 
debateable question. In very many instances, those who 
have been liberated amongst the whites, have turned out 
badly. Often, their condition is found to be worse than that 
of the slaves. They are thrown upon their own resources, 
without property, and without habits of industry and econo- 
my ; and they know not how to provide for themselves. 

Suppose the whole slave population thus turned loose, what 

6 



S2 DISCUSSION 

would be the result ? On this subject the General Assem- 
bly, of the Presbyterian church, in 1818, said — 
- "As our couutry has inflicted a most grievous injury on 
the unhappy Africans, by bringing them into slavery, wo 
cannot, indeed, urge that we should add a second injury 
to the first, by emancipating them in such a manner as that 
they will be likely to destroy themselves or others." 

But all these things are entirely aside from the question 
before us. We are not discussing the duty of States, in 
reference to slavery, but the duty of individuals, whilst the 
system of slavery, as it is called, continues. Is it a sin for 
any individual, under any circumstances, to buy and hold a 
slave 1 Suppose, for example, I buy a slave from a cruel mas- 
ter, at his own earnest request,will you denounce me as a hein- 
ous sinner, and exclude me from the church ? What injury 
have I inflicted on the slave ? I did not reduce him to his 
present condition. My only sin in the case, is, that I have 
iviproved his condition. Is this a crime for which a man is 
to be excluded from the church as a robber and a man-stealer? 
Such cases are numerous. A slave, owned by a cruel mas- 
tor, who is about to separate him from his family, earnestly 
implores a Christian to buy him, and allow him to serve 
him, that he may live with his family. The Christian has 
not five hundred dollars to give him as a present ; but he 
can purchase him, and take his services for his money. 
Thus, though he cannot put him into a condition so pleas- 
ant as he would desire, he does actually very much improve it. 

To illustrate the principle, a poor man comes to you to 
beg assistance. You give him according to your ability, 
thus to some extent improving his condition. Are you 
chargeable with crime because you did not give him a for- 
tune ? 

But, suppose a master to refuse to separate husbands and 
wives, provide abundant food and raiment, and carefully 
instruct his slaves in the doctrines and truths of Christianity ; 
are they still slaves ? Certainly, the relation of master and 
slave may exist without cruelty. The law, making men 



ON SLAVERY. 83 

slaves, says tlie gentleman,, is cruel. Admit it. You can- 
not, however, charge any individual with makino- such 
laws. But since the law exists, and the slaves have been 
brought into their present condition, how far may we, for 
the public good, continue to hold them in that condition 1 
This question has been pressed upon Mr. B., and he has 
given no satisfactory answer. He says, we may deprive 
them of the right to vole. We may make laws for tliem. 
But by what rule of morals, I ask, does he stop there 1 
Does the Bible furnish any such principle ? If we may so 
far consult our safety, and the public good, as to prevent 
them from voting, why may we not, if the public safety re- 
quire it, go further ? 

It is my purpose to keep distinctly before the audience the 
real question at issue. 1. It is not whether it is right to 
reduce free men to a state of slavery ; but what is our duty 
to a class of men who were made slaves before we were 
born. How far may we consult our safety and the public 
good in our treatment of them? 2. It is not whether the 
laws of the slave-holding States, or of any one of them, are 
just. Let the gentleman prove, that cruel laws are essen- 
tial to the relation between master and slave ; and I will 
give up the question. 3. The question is not whether it is 
right for masters to treat their slaves as things, as chattels, 
or oppress them in any way. There is no controversy on 
this point. But do all masters, in fact, so treat their slaves ? 
We deny that they do. 4. The question is not w^hether 
slavery is an evil. This is admitted ; but all evils do not 
imply sin in those connected w4th them ; nor can we at once 
free society from all existing evils. 5. The question, 1 re- 
peat, is not concerning the true, 'policy of the several States. 
Admit it to be the true policy and the duty of the State of 
Kentucky, at once to emancipate all her slaves ; the question 
arises, how far are individuals responsible for existing laws ? 
Every citizen of the State is responsible so far, and only so 
far, as his influence and his vote go to improve such laws. 
But what is the duty of individuals so long as the system 



84 DISCUSSION 

continues ? This is the question. 6. We are not discuss- 
ino- the question whether the system of Avierican slavery^ as 
it is called, is right or wrong. Distinction, says the venera- 
ble Dr. Chalmers, ought to be made between a system and 
individuals unwillingly involved in it. 

7. The real question is, whether the relation between mas- 
ter and slave, divested of every thing not essential to it, is 
sinful? I have defined slave-holding to be the claim of one 
man to the services of another, with the corresponding obli- 
gation to provide him comfortable food and raiment, and 
suitable religious instruction ; and I have called on the gen- 
tleman to show what there is in it beyond this claim to ser- 
vices. What have I omitted in this definition ? Is the rela- 
tion, upon w^hich this claim is based, in itself sinful ? If it 
is, as already remarked, it must be at once abandoned, with- 
out regard to circumstances ; gradual emancipation is out 
of the question. I repeat what I have before said, that if 
the tendency of abolitionism, were to liberate the slaves and 
improve their condition, I would be the last to oppose it. But 
my clear conviction is, that its tendency and its effects are to 
rivet the chains upon them, and to aggravate every evil 
attending their condition. 

I have now presented three distinct arguments against the 
doctrine of abolitionism — that slave-holding is in itself sin- 
ful ; and Mr. B. has made no attempt to reply to either of 
them. I wish to keep them before the audience. They are 
the following: 

1. The great principles of the moral law are written upon 
the hearts of men, so that, when presented, they do commend 
themselves to the consciences and the understandings of all, 
if we except the most degraded and depraved ; but the doc- 
trine that slave-holding is in itself sinful, has not so com- 
mended itself, even to the great body of wise and good men, 
to whose minds it has been presented ; therefore it is not true. 
Does any man, for a moment, doubt whether it is sinful to 
lie, to steal, or to murder? None. But abolitionists assert, 
that slave-holding is one of the grossest, and most aggrava- 



ON SLAVERY. 85 

ted viola-tions of the moral law, of which men can be guilty ; 
nay, that to be a slave-holder, is to be guilty of murder, 
adultery, and indeed to violate every commandment in the 
decalogue. Now, it is a fact, that the great body of wise 
and good men, commentators, critics and theologians, have 
declared their conviction that it is not in itself sinful. Now, 
one or two things is true : Either the great principles of the 
moral law do not commend themselves to the understandings 
and consciences of men ; or abolitionism, which never has 
so commended itself, is false. 

2. My second argument was tliis : it is an admitted truth, 
that you never find an individual, or a society, corrupt and 
heretical on one fundamental point in morals, or in Christian 
faith, and sound in all others. He who is rotten on one fun- 
damental principle of the moral law, is a corrupt man, and 
will prove it by disregard of others. The same principle 
holds good in regard to the doctrines of Christianity. But 
it is an admitted fact, that the ministers and churches in the 
slave-holding States, are as sound in the faith, and as pure in 
morals on all other points, as any abolitionist. Now, if this 
principle be true, it follows, that those ministers and churches 
are a most remarkable class of hypocrites, or abolitionism is 
false. 1 assert, that the history of the world does not furnish 
an example to conflict with the principle I have stated. It is, 
therefore, clear, that abolitionism is false. 

3. My third argument was: that there are Christian 
ministers and Christian churches, who are involved in slave- 
holding, but who, nevertheless, are owned and blessed of 
God. I was truly pleased to hear the gentleman admit, that 
there may be, and probably are. Christian slave-holders even 
better than himself. Prof Stowe, as before stated, though an 
abolitionist, declares that he has evidence that there are slave- 
holding Christians and churches, whom Christ has accepted. 
Moreover, it is a fact, that many of the most efficient minis- 
ters in the free States were converted, if converted at all, in 
revivals in those slave-holding churches, and in answer to the 
prayers of those slave-holding Christians. Now, one of three 



8G DISCUSSION 

things is true, viz : God hears the prayers and blesses the 
labors of the most abominable criminals ; or those revivals 
are all spurious, and the converts are hypocrites ; or aboli- 
tionism is false. 

The gentleman is at liberty to take either of the three posi- 
tions; I hope, he will take one or another of them decidedly. 
As yet he has made no attempt to reply to this argument. 
1 regret that he has not. I am prepared to present other 
arguments ; but my purpose was to occupy my appropriate 
position as respondent, and follow him. Since, however, I 
cannot do this, I will proceed to offer my 

4th argument, founded upon what has been termed 
the golden rule. " Therefore all things whatsoever ye 
would that men should do to you, do you even so to them." 
Matt. vii. 12. This law, it is contended, proves slave-hold- 
ing in itself sinful ; and indeed it is the great argument of 
abolitionists. What is the meaning of it? It does not 
mean, that we must do for others every thing which they 
may suppose, we ought to do ; but it does require us to do 
for others what we would reasonably expect and desire them 
to do for us, if the case Avere reversed, and we were in their 
condition. I acknowledge, that this rule requires us to im- 
prove the condition of every fellow-being, just so far as we 
can, consistently with other paramount duties. Let us, then, 
apply the rule, as thus interpreted, to the subject in hand. — 
There, for example, is a slave belonging to a cruel master, 
who is about to separate him from his family. The case 
has already been presented. He earnestly begs you to pur- 
chase him, and allow him to serve you, because thereby you 
will do him a great favor, and greatly improve his condition. 
The price demanded is five hundred or six hundred dollars. 
You do not wish to purchase a slave ; and you have not 
that amount of money to give him as a present. But you 
can purchase him, and take his services for your money. 
This he begs you to do. With much trouble, it may be, 
you raise the amount of money demanded. The slave is 
purchased. He thanks God for his improved condition, and 



ON SLAVERY. 87 

blesses the man who saved him from being torn from those 
he loves. Now enter your charge against the purchaser. 
Will you say, he has reduced a free man to slavery ? No — 
he was already a slave. Will you say, he has made his 
condition more intolerable than it was ? No — he has greatly 
improved it ; and this is his siii, if he have sinned at all ! 
But will you say, that, having conferred one favor, a very 
great favor, upon this slave, who had no special claims 
upon him, he is now bound to confer a second and greater 
favor, by emancipating him ? O but, say the abolitionists, 
if you enslave a man, you do him a great wrong. I deny 
that the purchaser enslaved him. He was a slave before. 
Now let the gentleman place himself for a moment in the 
condition of such a slave, and tell us what he would desire 
to have done for him. He has already let us know, that he 
loves his family ; and, doubtless, much as he loves liberty, 
he loves them more. I know what I would wish a man 
to do for me, were I in such a situation. I would desire 
him to purchase me, and allow me to serve him ; and I 
would esteem him a benefactor indeed. Then am I not 
bound by the golden rule to purchase him ? So far is that 
rule from forbidding slave-holding under all circumstances, 
that under circumstances such as I have supposed, and such 
as often occur, it makes even the most benevolent men hold- 
ers of slaves. Yet according to the doctrine of abolitionists, 
slave-holders are the greatest criminals, and deserve to be 
executed by the common hangman ! 

Take another <:ase. Suppose, as it not unfrequently hap- 
pens, a man has fallen heir to some fifty or more slaves, of 
different ages. He desires now to do the very best for them. 
What must he do? Abolitionists say, he must forthwith 
liberate them. But there are difficulties in the way. Some 
are old and helpless ; others are women and children who 
are incapable of supporting themselves. Shall he turn them 
all loose to provide for themselves ? But the law, even in 
Kentucky, says, he must first give bond and security, in an 
amount sufficient to secure the State against their becoming 



83 DISCUSSION 

a public expense. Is it the dut}' of a man to give such 
security for the support of a large number of slaves of dif- 
ferent ages? With me, as a minister of the gospel, it is a 
fixed rule never to become security for others, nor to ask 
others to become securities for me. Without departing from 
this rule, I could not liberate slaves whom I might inherit. 
But suppose, as it not unfrequently happens, that a man 
possesses little property except the inherited slaves ; who 
will be willing to become his security for such an amount 
as the civil law requires? Would it be his duty to ask 
any one to run such a risk ? 

Some years since, when this subject was under discussion 
in the Synod of Kentucky, an elder rose in his place, and 
stated, that he owned, I think, about one hundred slaves, the 
most if not all of whom he had inherited. Some of them 
were far advanced in life, and could not provide for them- 
selves ; others were women and children whom no one would 
feed and cloth for their labor. He said, he had no desire to 
hold them as slaves, but wished to do the very best for them. 
If he should manumit them all, what would become of the 
aged, and of the women and children ? Besides, it was a se- 
rious matter to give bond and security for the support of so 
many of different ages and character. He could not remove 
them out of the State ; for they were inter-married with the 
slaves of others ; and as to giving them wages, he said, taking 
them all together they were eating him up. With anxious feel- 
ings he asked the brethren who urged immediate emanci- 
pation, what he ought to do. And now I ask the gentleman 
to tell us what the golden rule required him to do. Will he 
enlighten us on this subject ? Was it his duty to turn them 
out to take care of themselves 1 Then what would become 
of the aged and infirm, and of the women and children ? 
Was it his duty to separate husbands and wives, parents and 
children, and remove them to Ohio? But even in Ohio, this 
land of liberty, of which the gentleman has spoken so elo- 
quently, your laws require, that when a colored person pro- 
poses to reside in any county in the State, he shall, within 



ON SLAVERY.. 89 

twenty days after coming into the county, obtain two free- 
holders as securities for his support and good conduct. 

Or take the case of a man owning slaves in the more 
southern States, the laws of which forbid him to manumit 
his slaves, unless he will remove them out of the State ; 
what is the duty of such a man ? A case precisely in point 
has recently occurred. A gentleman, I tliink, in Boston, fell 
heir to a plantation and a number of slaves in the South. He 
wrote to the person who had the management of the busi- 
ness, that he would not own the slaves. But he was inform- 
ed, that he could not liberate them, unless he should remove 
them out of the State. After much perplexity in regard to 
his duty in the matter, he concluded to go and live with them, 
and do for them the best he could. Did he violate the let- 
ter or the spirit of the golden rule ? 



Y7"ednesday Evening, 9 o'clock. 
[MR. BLANCHARD's F0UR,TH SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen Moderators^ and Gentlemen and Ladies^ Fellow 
Citizens : 

I will employ my half hour, first, in briefly adverting to 
some things which my friend has said in his last speech, 
and then proceeding with my argument. I wish to answer, 
categorically and briefly, some questions which he propound- 
ed : and I will here state the reason why I do not prolong 
my replies to his remarks, in order that I may not seem to 
treat his arguments with disrespect. My plan is this: — 
Where I have an argument in my brief which meets what 
he advances, I do not reply to that point as I go along, but 
wait until it assumes its proper place in my course of re- 
mark. For instance, I have a distinct argument on the 
" golden rule," which I have prepared with some care. I 
have, also, others upon different points touched upon by my 
brother ; and I hope that in the three daj's before us, we 



90 DISCUSSION 

shall have time to learn a variety of things, if we possess 
our souls in patience. 

He asks me to show him a man, orthodox in all points of 
faith but one, and heterodox in that. I answer, that the 
Scribes and Pharisees were orthodox while they "sat in 
Moses' seat ; " and our Savior himself bade the people hear 
them, and to " do what they said." But they were hetero- 
dox in the one point of rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ, their 
Messiah. Him they rejected because he was poor, obscure 
and unpopular. And I fear that some reject that same Lord 
in the person of the despised, stricken slave, and for a like 

reason. 

He asked, also, concerning the civil rights of negroes, how 
far we may go in curtailing the rights of man before the sin 
begins? I answer as I did before, governments may, for 
just reasons, withhold civil rights without sin. He told you, 
and truly, that I spoke of the right of voting as a com- 
modity which the community has a right to dispose of, with 
an eye on its own preservation. This, I believe, is not only 
true, but commonly believed. I ask, is the Irishman a slave, 
after landing in this country, and before he obtains his right 
to vote? I think, if you were to tell the Lishman or honest 
German that he was a slave, because not yet naturalized, he 
would be apt to show you a large pair of hands. Is there 
any similarity whatever between the unnaturalized foreign- 
er's condition and that of a slave? The fact that my bro- 
ther is in perplexity on this point, shows how slavery blinds 
and blunts the minds of good men, even on the subject of 
human rights. " How far may we go in restricting human 
liberty without necessarily sinning?" I answer: We may 
go till we come to " certain inalienable rights ; among 
which are life, liberty/, and the pursuit of happiness'' — 
That is " how" far we may go in curtailing men's rights 
without sin. He inquires, with all simplicity, "if we con- 
trol civil, why not natural rights also ?" Why not, as law- 
fully, go a step farther, and make the man a slave ? If you 
may, for good reasons take away his vote, why not his ser- 



ON SLAVERY. 91 

vices also ? Because " God hath created all men free and 
equal, and hath endowed them with, certain INALIENA- 
BLE rights !" — rights w^hich they may not lay down — 
which no man, or body of men, called a Legislature, can take 
away without sin ! This is why we may not make men 
slaves ! This was the very point on which this country and 
Great Britain were at issue in the American Revolution. It 
was not the actual oppression suffered, but the principle in- 
volved, which caused the war. The Americans declared 
that men had some rights which the Legislature might not 
touch ; while Parliament held that its power over the sub- 
ject's rights was limited only by its own discretion: and, 
with his present principles, my friend would have been 
found in that struggle shouldering, cheek by jowl, in goodly 
fellowship with Lord North, or the later Castlereagh. 

The " good of society," then, may, for just reasons, pro- 
ceed in restricting men's rights, till it arrives at rights which 
are inalienable: and then, "hands off!" Property may go 
for taxes till you touch the means of life, if just necessity 
require. But you must not take out of the man himself, the 
right to acquire and oAvn property. You may justly gov-, 
ern and restrain men's bodies, but not mutilate their minds. 

" But for the soul ! O, tremble and beware ! 
To lay rude hands upon God's mysteries there !" 

My friend told you that I said one thing which was incor- 
rect. Gentlemen, for the honor of Christianity, and the 
Christian ministry, I wish to avoid any thing like contra- 
diction with my brother ; and I shall strive, so far as possi- 
ble, to do so. I had stated that the General Assembly, of 
1818, adopted a law requiring its members to educate their 
slaves, and prepare them for emancipation. He replies, that 
the Assembly passed no such law, but only adopted a sim- 
ple recommendation. Now, I read from my friend's printed 
lectures ; remarking, first, that though I was reared in the 
Congregational church, yet I have been Presbyterian long 
enough to know that the word " enjoin" carries the force of a 



92 DISCUSSION 

law in tlie PresTDyterian church. My respected friend must, 
also, know it. I now quote the act of the General Assem- 
bly, from "Rice's Lectures," page 17: 

" The law of the Presbyterian church, on this subject, is 
clear and explicit. In 1818, the General Assembly gave 
the following injunction to all church sessions and presbyte- 
ries under their care : 

'We enjoin it on all church sessions and presbyteries, to 
discountenance, and. as far as possible, prevent, all cruelty 
to slaves ; especially, the cruelty of separating husband and 
wife,ect" 

Certainly, the word enjoin, carries the force of law to 
Presbyterian ears; and I was correct in calling the Act of 
1818 a '•Haio of the churchP 

The words of the Assembly are, "We enjoin," etc. But, 
that you may not suppose that I rest on church technicali- 
ties, I read from the Act of the General Assembly itself, 
quoted in"J?z^e'5 hectures^^ same page: — "The manifest 
violation or disregard of the injunction here given, in its 
true spirit and intention, ought to be considered as just 
ground for the discipline and censure, of the Church." Yet 
he tells us that this Act of 1818 is not a "Za-w," but an 
exhortation. Surely, my friend must have forgotten, in the 
multitude of his engagements, what he printed a month ago ! 

My friend cautions me, with some little parade, against 
what he thinks the fault of abolitionists, viz : the making of 
assertions against slavery, without proof I have read my 
proofs, where proofs were required. Yet all that I have said, 
or can say, is not a blister, to the bloody inflictions of slavery; 
inflictions, the merciless reality of which, I pledge myself 
to establish, if necessary: and you may remember, and see 
if I redeem my pledge. 

Mr. Rice read to you, from a Scotch paper, " The Wit- 
ness," what he calls a false and abusive statement, respect- 
ing slave-holders' cruelty, to the effect that ministers might 
whip slave women cruelly before preaching on the Sabbath, 
without disgrace. I suppose that story was taken from the 



ON SLAVERY. 93 

Statement of Rev. James Nourse, of MifHin county, Penn- 
sylvania, a brother whom I know, and who declares, in 
substance, that upon a visit to a brother minister, he found, 
tied to the post in front of his house, a woman, with her 
neck and shoulders bare, whom the brother minister was 
about to flog. Mr. Nourse plead with the brother minister 
not to whip her; but he did not defer the chastisement, even 
for the sake of his visiter, but proceeded to the infliction, 
in his presence. He applied the raw-hide with such force 
that the welts rose upon her back, under every lash. 

Now, if ministers, under the restraints of reputation, and 
in the presence of visiters, when offending children com- 
monly escape, can inflict such scourgings upon women, — if 
these things are done in the green tree, what may be done 
in the dry? — out of sight, in the garret, or cellar, and when 
no visiters are present? 

My friend said, also, with an apparent candor which 
touched my heart, that if I could show that these cruelties, 
such as the practice of forbidding slaves to read, and the 
separation of families, were not mere adjuncts, but integral 
parts of slavery, he would go with me, for immediate abo- 
lition. If he will stand by that pledge, I do not despair 
that we may yet hold abolition meetings together. For 
you all can see, that if, for example, the sheriff" were not 
allowed to sell slaves on execution without regarding family 
ties, the property-holding power would soon be abraded and 
wasted away : or if administrators were not permitted to sell 
separately at auction the slaves of an intestate ; the same re- 
sults. If men were compelled to sell six or eight horses in a 
bunch whenever they sell one, is it not plain that it would 
lower and nearly destroy the property value of horses ? 
But I have prepared an argument expressly on that point: 
and I trust in God that he will give me strength to present 
it in its place. 

I now resume the course of my argument. I was show- 
ing that slavery in law, is slavery in fact, that the slave's ac- 
tual condition is that of property. And the next proof which 



94 DiscrssioN 

I bring, is the fact that the State fays for the slaves which it 
hangs. See the Kentucky law of 1798. " When courts 
within this commonwealth shall determine that any slave 
shall suffer death according to law," &c. The auditor is 
to issue his warrant for the value of said slave, and the State 
treasurer is to pay the same to the owner on the clerk's presen- 
tation of the sheriff's certificate of the slave's sentence and 
execution ! 

This shows that the property law is a law " stronger than 
death ;" that it outlives the slave, and is executed after he is 
in eternity ! 

My last argument, showing that slaves are actual prop- 
erty, is, that the reported cases in the books, are full of in- 
stances, showing that practical slavery is what theoretical, 
legal slavery is, vi2 : the human species made property. In 
the Supreme Court of Tennessee, in 1834, there came up 
for judgment the following case, to wit: 

Frederick, a slave of Col. Patton, of the North Carolina 
line, with his master's consent, enlisted and fought through 
the loar of the American revolution. Now, if ever there 
was an instance where the Shylock's bond of human flesh 
might have been relaxed — where the laics of slavery might 
have been mitigated in practice — it ought to have been in 
the case of this veteran slave soldier. Gentlemen and fel- 
low-citizens, I beg you will mark the illustration of the 
slave-condition which this case affords. On the 8th of 
August, 1821, as Frederick's name was found in the muster 
roll, a warrant was issued to Frederick, giving him the sol- 
dier's bounty of one thousand acres of land. The question 
before the Court was, whether that thousand acres of land 
belonged to Frederick, or to his master ? Remember, now, 
that this is not a statute which I am reading, but an adjudged 
case. Judge Catro.n's decision is in these words: "Frede- 
rick, the slave of Col. Patton, earned this warrant by his 
services in the Continental line. What is earned by the 
slave belongs to the master by the common law, the civil 
law, and the recognized rules of property in the slave-hold- 



ON SLAVERY. 95" 

ing States of this Union." This decision is a triple legal 
cord, binding Frederick to the condition of a brute ! The 
land u-ent not to Frederick^ but to the heirs of Col. Patton. 
Aye, gentlemen, seven years' fighting for his country's 
liberties, could not, and did not, entitle Frederick to be con- 
sidered a man. Nor could service during the war of the 
Revolution entitle him to soil enough in the country wiiich 
his courage had helped to save, to bury his broken heart in. 
Whenthis war-worn veteran returns home, amid a nation's 
shouts for liberty, and finds that, in the midst of those whom 
his toil, and sufferings, and dangers have made free, he is 
still a slave ! 

" O shall we scoff at Europe's kings, 
While freedom's fire is dim with us ; 
And round our country's altar clings 

The damning shade of slavery's curse 1 
Go ! Let us ask of Constantine 

To loose his hold on Poland's throat, 
Or beg the Lord of Mammouhd's line 

To spare the struggling Suliote. 
Will not the scorching answer come, 

From turban'd Turk and fiery R.uss ; 

' Go ! Loose your fetter'd slaves at home — 

Then turn and ask the like of us 7 ' " 

Oh ! Sirs, " I tremble for my country when I remember 
that God is just! and that his justice will not sleep forever." 

Gentlemen and fellow-citizens, I have done with this 
branch of my argument. I will simply recapitulate the 
points which I have sought to establish. First — that slaves 
are not only theoretically, but actually, in a property condi- 
tion. The chattelizing statute — the frequent Legislatures 
adding to and repealing parts of the slave code — the laws 
made for enforcing and regulating this chattelship — sheriffs 
and administrators advertizing slaves with cattle, swine, and 
other property — the laws licensing auctioneers, and declar- 
ing slaves to be merchandize — the fact that the laws to pro- 
tect the master's property-right in slaves, provide carefully 
for their own execution by paying prosecutors, informers, 
&c., while no such provision is made to execute lav/s which 



96 DISCUSSION 

pretend to protect the lives or limbs of sliLtves — the fact that 
slaves convicted of crimes are not punished by the human 
penal code^ but according to the punishment of brutes — that 
slaves are by law forbidden all weapons of defence, even to 
possessing- a club — that slaves criminally executed are paid 
for by the State — and that slaves fighting for their country 
through the American Revolution cannot gain a title to a 
foot of soldier's bounty land, nor even to the ragged regi- 
mentals which they have worn out in the service — all these 
facts show, if aught can show, that the American slaves are 
actual as well as legal property. And when professed 
ministers of Christ vindicate the holding of slaves in this 
condition, and then tell the public that they are opposed to 
holding slaves as " mere" property, they discredit either 
their heads, or their hearts, or both. They must be, as I 
humbly conceive, either unfeeling men, or men wedded to 
error. 

I now take up a second branch of my argument. My 
friend has said that "in Kentucky the slave has the same 
protection that the child has." — Rice''s Lectures, p, 17. 
And you have observed how he is constantly struggling to 
put in the slavery-relation among the holy domestic and 
home-bred relations of our race, such as marriage and pa- 
rentage ; I must be excused for saying that there is nothing 
which I have so prayed for, as for patience — while listening 
to sentiments like these from my brother's mouth. Mar- 
riage is a relation God-given, and Heaven-derived ; — institu- 
ted in Eden ; and, thanks to the most merciful God, not ta- 
ken away from our race at their fall. I have remembered 
the sweet assemblage of holy sanctities which belong to the 
marriage hour. When the young man first trembles to find 
lier leaning upon him, who shall thenceforth lean upon him 
throughout after life : when both bow in the consummation 
of that union which each hopes will be perfected in heaven 
by a union of both in Christ. And when I heard him tell 
me that I have no better relation to my wife than the slave- 
holder to the miserable object of his avarice or his lust, I have 



ON SLAVERY. 97 

wept ! and inly prayed to God for such strength of body 
and powers of mind, as will enable me to show this mon- 
strous doctrine in its true light. I wish to show that the 
slavery relation is piratical and contraband ; that it has no 
more business among the sacred relations of the family than 
the Devil had in Eden. To class it among them is a senti- 
ment alien from God and man, and unworthy of human 
lips. My whole argument thus far has been on the naked 
question: — What is this relation of master and slave ; — and 
how it stands related to the gospel of Christ, which is the 
*' kingdom of heaven" on earth? I shall go steadily for- 
ward ; and if my friend, as he says, cannot find enough to 
answer me as we go along, let him sing anthems, and wait. 
[Applause.]] I am here to show that this relation of master 
and slave is not a natural relation. That it has no founda- 
tion in natural law. I stand with the pious John Wesley, 
and exclaim, " I strike at the root of this complicated villai- 
ny. I absolutely deny all slave-holding to be consistent with 
any degree of natural equity." — Thoughts on Slavery. 

And it falls directly in my course to examine at lengih 
the proposition of my opponent that in Kentucky slaves are 
protected as children are. What does my brother mean 
when he says that "J?i Kentucky the slave has the same 'pro- 
tection that a child has V Upon what principle is he op- 
posed to slavery, if he believes the relation in itself not sin- 
ful, and that the slaves have the same protection that chil- 
dren have ? And what becomes of him if I show that he 
has deliberately made a statement so grave and momentous, 
without any authority whatever, and that his whole pamph- 
let is made up of such statements? 

My brother knows that, in Kentucky, the slave child has 
no legal parents to protect it. Slaves have no legal marriage : 
that the slave has no family ; that his wife is the property 
of another man ; that his children are sold, at the master's 
will, to the cotton-field and sugar-plantation of the South. — 
What does he mean? Is parental protection nothing? Almost 
every free child in Kentucky is connected more or less with 



98 DISCUSSION 

property ; and '• money," says Solomon," is a defence." (I have 
quoted one Scripture, at all events.) [A laugh.] But slaves 
can have no legal connection with any property whatever. 
Is the protection of property nothing? Further: the slave 
child has no legal father, mother, uncle, aunt, or grand-pa- 
rent, brother, sister, or cousin ; whilst the free child has 
some or all of them. Are all these nothing 1 Will Dr. Rice 
say that some slaves have families, and that in the eye of, 
God they are married? What protection does the law of 
Kentucky give them in that relation 1 That is the point. 
For he says, ^^ I?i Kentucky ^ the slave has the savie protec- 
tion that the child has." — Lectures, p. 17. 

I wish you to put down a pin at this place, for I am going 
to show, that this declaration, thus deliberately uttered, and 
afterward printed by him, that, " in Kentucky the slave has 
the same protection that the child has," is made totally with- 
out all authority, and is as perfectly opposed to the truth as 
any proposition which can be put into human language. 

[Time expired. 



Wednesday Evening, 9 1-2 o'clock. 
,\mr. rice's fourth speech.] 
Ge7itlemen Moderators, and Fellow-Citizens : 

I will not charge the gentleinan with intentional depar- 
ture from the truth ; yet I am constrained to expose two very 
gross misstatements in his last speech. I have long since 
learned that abolitionism cannot sustain itself, except by 
weapons of this kind. It does not march up to the question, 
and rely upon sound argument and established facts. The 
gentleman stated, that the General Assembly of 1818 passed 
a law requiring slave-holders in their communion to prepare 
their slaves for freedom, and then to manumit them. 

Mr. Blanchard here explained. I did not say so, but said, 
" with a view to set them free," 

Mr. Rice. The explanation does not remove the difficulty. 



OIM SLAVKE-Y. 99 

The Assembly, he says, passed a law requiring the members 
of these churches to prepare their slaves for freedom, with 
a view to their liberation. I denied that any such law was 
passed. Mr. B. produced my Lectures on Slavery, and told 
you, he would quote "Dr. Rice" against himself; but he 
took care not to read the quotation. I beg leave to supply 
his " lack of service." The language of the Assembly is as 
follows : 

" We enjoin it on all church sessions and presbyteries un- 
der the care of this Assembly, to discountenance, and as far 
as possible, to prevent all cruelty, of whatever kind, in the 
treatment of slaves : especially the cruelty of separating hus- 
band and wife, parents and children ; and that which con- 
sists in selling slaves to those who will either themselves de- 
prive these unhappy people of the blessings of the gospel, 
or will transport them to places where the gospel is not pro- 
claimed, or where it is /orbidden to slaves to attend upon its 
institutions." 

It is true, the Assembly enjoined something ; but what is it ? 
That body enjoined it upon sessions and presbyteries to pre- 
vent all cruelty in the treatment of slaves by the members 
of their churches ; but where is the injunction to prepare 
them for freedom? This was recommended^ not enjoined. 
Yet the gentleman turned to the very page on which this quo- 
tation was found. I hope, for his own sake, he had not read 
it. I expose this matter that you may see how carelessly he 
makes bold assertions. The injunction of which he spoke 
is not here ; as he would have proved, had he read the quo- 
tation which he commenced reading. Why did he stop so 
suddenly ? 

But, he has also misrepresented my statement, that the 
slave in Kentucky has the same protection which the child 
has. I spoke, as the connection will show, only of protec- 
tion from cruel treatment. If a father can be proved to have 
treated his child cruelly, he is liable to suffer the penalty of 
the law ; and if a master can be proved guilty of cruel treat- 
ment of his slave, he is likewise liable to prosecution before 



100 DISCUSSION 

the civil tribunal. So. that the slave has the same protection 
from cruelty from his master, which the child has from cru- 
elty from his father. If the gentleman so glaringly misrep- 
resents what is before his eyes, or what he has just heard, 
how can we rely on his statement of facts 1 

My second argument against abolitionism was founded on 
the fact, that individuals or associations are never found to be 
heretical on one fundamental principle of morality, or one 
fundamental doctrine of Christianity, and sound on all others. 
I called on Mr. B. to produce an exception to the statement. 
He gives as such an exception the Pharisees in our Savior's 
time ! They, he tells us, were orthodox on all points but 
one, viz: the rejection of the promised Messiah! Never be- 
fore did I hear a minister of the gospel assert, that the Phari- 
sees were orthodox on all points but one. Did not the Sav- 
ior charge them with tithing mint, anise, and cummin, and 
neglecting " the weightier matters of the law, justice, judg- 
ment and mercy?" Did he not compare them to "whited sepul- 
chres," and charge them with cleansing " the outside of the 
cup and platter," whilst they left the inside in its filth ? Did 
they not wholly err in regard to the nature and design of 
the ceremonial law, relying upon the strict observance of its 
ceremonies for justification and salvation? Nay — in reject- 
ing Jesus Christ as an impostor, did they not necessarily re- 
ject every distinguishing doctrine of his gospel? Being 
ignorant or God's righteousness, they went about to establish 
their own righteousness. The gentleman knows they were 
in gross error concerning almost every fundamental doctrine 
of revelation ; and yet he produces them to prove, that men 
may be heretical on one fundamental principle of morals or 
doctrine of the gospel, and yet orthodox on all others ! These 
are the men who are compared with the Christians of the 
slave-holding States, who are admitted to be sound on all 
points of doctrine and morals, unless they err concerning the 
sin of slave-holding! Verily, the gentleman needs the ap- 
plause of his friends to enforce such arguments I 

I have called on Mr. B. to inform us by what principle 
4 



ON SLAVERY. 101 

of morality lie, whilst admitting the right of the slaves to be 
equal with their masters, proposes to deprive them of the 
right to vote — to aid in making the laws under which they 
live ; and, if he may go so far, why not go farther ? In re- 
ply he asks, are the German emigrants slaves before they are 
permitted to vote? And then he tells us of "inalienable 
rights," viz: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" — 
Does he not know that the Declaration of Independence, 
which he so freely quotes, was drawn up in view of, and be- 
cause of, the fact, that the British Government insisted on 
taxing us without our consent? Was it not on this account 
that those noble spirits of the Revolution sunk their tea into 
the ocean ? Did not the authors of the Declaration of Lide- 
pendence regard it as one of their "inalienable rights" to 
aid in making the laws by which they were to be governed? 
Yet the gentleman intimates that we may prevent the color- 
ed people from voting, may make laws for them, and impose 
taxes on them, without infringing their "inalienable rights !" 
If this be true, of what worth is the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence? He quotes that noble instrument as declaring 
that " all men are born free and equal " How can he carry 
out this doctrine, and yet allow one class of men io impose 
laws and taxes upon another, without allowing them a voice ? 
Is there one kind of freedom, of "inalienable rights." for 
the blacks, and another for the whites ? After all the gen- 
tleman's declamation about the Declaration of Independ- 
ence, and " the one-bloodism of the New Testament," he 
admits that he is not unwilling to deprive the African race 
of the right to vote and hold civil offices ; thus, " for the pub- 
lic good," abandoning his own principles ! 

Mr. B. made another statement concerning the cruelty of 
Christian slave-holders, which is about as correct as those 
already exposed. I refer to the story, he said, was related 
by Rev. Jas. Nourse, of Mifflin county. Pa. I have no per- 
sonal acquaintance with Mr. Nourse ; but I have just been 
informed by a gentleman in the house, who was a member 



1 02 DISCUSSION 

of Mr. N.'s church, that he heard him deny having said that 
lie witnessed any such cruelty. 

Mr. Blanchard. — Please to name him. 

Mr Rice. — Mr. James Lindsay, now a member of the 
Central Presbyterian Church, of this city. 

But admitting this story to be literally true, does it afford 
any ground for the charge, that Christians are commonly 
guilty of such conduct? Such a charge would be an 
outrageous slander on the ministers of Jesus Christ. Yet 
these isolated cases are constantly paraded by abolitionists as 
characteristic of slave-holding amongst professing Christians 
generally. Thus are the church of Christ and his ministers 
traduced and slandered by the pretended friends of human 
rights ! I cannot say, of course, that Mr. B. does not be- 
lieve those improbable tales, for he seems to have a wonder- 
ful facility for believing whatever favors his views on this 
subject. 

He promises to prove that laws forbidding slaves to read 
are essential to the existence of slavery. Then he will 
prove more than he wishes ; for, it so happens, that in Ken- 
tucky there are no such laws. He will prove, therefore, 
that, in Kentucky, there is no slavery ; for the laws of that 
State, according to his logic, lack one essential ingredient of 
slavery. And in Virginia, whatever may be the letter of 
the law, slaves are, in many instances, taught to read. Pos- 
sibly we may, as the gentleman suggests, yet lecture togeth- 
er; for he is likely to prove Kentucky a free State! Let 
him only maintain the position, that a law forbidding slaves 
to read, is essential to the existence of the relation between 
master and slave, and I will, at once, prove that there is no 
slavery in Kentucky I 

But the State makes the slave property, even after he is 
dead, says Mr. B. ; and hence, he infers the sinfulness of 
the relation between master and slave. Is the master re- 
sponsible for all the laws of the State ? Would not Mr. B. 
rebel, if he were held responsible for all the legislation of 
the State of Ohio? Yet where is the difference? Why is 



ON SLAVERY. 103 

not he as justly responsible for the laws of Ohio, as the 
slave-holder for the laws of his State 1 Abolitionism can 
sustain itself only by charging upon individuals ail the in- 
justice of the State, and holding them responsible for all that 
the State permits. All the bad laws of Louisiana, he con- 
tends, are part and parcel of the relation, and are essential 
to it ; and the relation is sinful, because the laws are op- 
pressive. Yet when I prove that^some of those laws do 
not exist in Kentucky, he insists that the relation, to which 
they are essential, still exists ! We cannot but see that there 
is no candor in such reasoninof. 

"We are now about to close a discussion of six hours on 
the question : " Is slave-holding in itself sinful, and the re- 
lation between master and slave a sinful relation?" And 
although this question can be determined only by an appeal 
to the Bible, the gentleman in the affirmative has not quo- 
ted even a solitary passage from that book, if, perhaps, we 
except that in which the wise man says, inoney is foiver. — 
The argument, I presume, would be this : money is power ; 
therefore, slave-holding is in itself sinful ! How conclusive ! 
It is truly marvellous that he has not thought^it worth while 
to quote one passage from the only rule which he and I ac- 
knowledge as infallible, by way of proving his proposition! 

As I have nothing to reply to, it may be interesting to the 
audience to hear a brief recapitulation of the gentleman's 
arguments. He began with the melancholy interest he felt 
because of the slave gang which passed near Cincinnati, a 
few days since. 2. He spoke of the condition of the slaves 
on the plantations in the South. 3. He complained of their 
h^cVoi 'patronymics, that they are called Jim, Polly, &c., seem- 
ing to forget, that in this respect they were not more degraded, 
than Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 4. He told us, that jMr. 
Leavit said, the free States are made to support slavery ; and 
Dr. Bailey calculated the taxes imposed upon the free States 
on account of slavery. 5. He told us how dear liberty is 
to Ohio, and dilated vpon the constitutions of Ohio, Illinois 
and Indiana. 6. He declaimed against the sin of reducing 



104 DISCUSSION 

free men to a state of slavery, concerning which, by the way, 
there is no difference of opinion. 7. He told us of Sally 
Muller and some other girl, who, being free, were kidnapped 
and held in slavery. 8. He gave us Aristotle's definition 
of slavery together Avith a dissertation on Roman slavery. 

9. He quoted from Delaney a legal definition of slavery. 

10. He asserted and repeated, that amongst slaves the 
marriage relation cannot exist, and their children are ille- 
gitimate. This assertion he finds it very difficult to prove. 

11. He declares the slaves not validly married, because 
the civil law does not recognize their marriage. But when 
pressed to prove by the word of God, that the recognition 
of the civil laAV is necessary to the validity of marriage, he 
could give no better proof, than the fact that Samson, at his 
marriacre, had a procession and a seven day's feast ! 12. He 
read from the lav/ books some of the laws by which in the 
southern States slavery is regulated. His argument was 
this : All the unjust and oppressive laws concerning slavery 
are essential to the existence of the relation ; therefore, since 
there are bad laws, the relation itself is sinful ! But I proved 
that in Kentucky, for example, several of those laws do not 
exist ; therefore, if they are essential to the relation between 
master and slave, Kentucky is a free State! 13. He told 
lis of the girl who wept because slaves were found in con- 
nection with swine. Therefore, it would seem, the relation 
is in itself sinful. 14. He asserted that the condition of the 
slaves, so far from being improved, is growing worse — an 
assertion contradicted by all who know any thing on the sub- 
ject. 15. He told us how Richard the sexton of the Dan- 
ville church, was sold away from his wife — a fact which 
requires proof. 10. He told us of Mr. Stiles selling slaves, 
and of Mr. Paxton being obliged to leave his church, be- 
Cdse he obeyed a law, which never had an existence ! 

This is an outline of Avhat we have heard in proof of the 
sinfulness of the relation between master and slave ! Such 
are the arguments by which it is proved (by the Bible, of 
course !) that slave-holding is in itself sinful, and the relation 



ON SLA\^RY. 105 

between master and slave a sinful relation ! So much for 
a debate of six hours ! 

But I must now resume the train of thought, I was pur- 
su.^ng, when I closed my last speech. A man living in 
Mississippi, or some one of the southern States, inherits fifty 
or five hundred slaves. The laws forbid him to manumit 
them, unless he will remove them from the State. What is 
he to do? He finds serious, and even insuperable difiicul- 
ties in his way. They are inter-married with the slaves of 
other men; and it would not be right to put asunder what 
God has joined together, even for the sake of liberty. But 
suppose this difficulty removed, and the slaves brought to 
Ohio ; he is required to find two freeholders in the county 
where each of them is to reside, who will go security for 
their support and good conduct. Is it so very easy a matter 
to get such security ? What, I ask, is the duty of such a 
man, viewed in the light of the golden rule ? 

A case in point, as I remarked in the close of my last 
speech, recently occurred. A gentleman in Boston became 
heir to a plantation, and a number of slaves, in the South. 
He \^Tote to those who had the business in charge, to set the 
slaves at libert}^ They informed him, that this could not 
be done, unless he would remove them out of the State. 
After much perplexity, he determined to go and live with 
them, and endeavor to do his duty as a Christian master. 
This case is related by Rev. Dr. Cunningham, of Scotland, 
who says, the gentleman is now living with his slaves, and 
fully discharging the dvity of a Christian. But if the doc- 
trine of abolitionism is true, that man is a heinous and scan- 
dalous sinner, little better than a murderer, and ought to be 
excluded from the church ! True, he is doing the best for 
his slaves that the law allows ; but if slave-holding is in 
itself sinful, he is living in sin, and must be condemned ! 

Take another case. A man has purchased 500 slaves. 
He afterwards becomes pious, and desires to act towards 
them in accordance with the golden rule. What can he 
do? He cannot separate husbands and wives ;_ and if he 



lOG DISCUSSION 

could, difficulties meet him on his arrival in Ohio. Will 
3'-ou denounce that man, because he continues to be a slave- 
holder, though contrary to his wish ? Suppose him, sacred- 
ly, to regard the marriage relation, provide for them abund- 
ant food and raiment, and conscientiously to instruct them 
in the religion of Christ ; is he a sinner ? 

Do you say, let him pay them wages? But it depends 
very much on circumstances, whether their support, the care 
taken of them in sickness and old age, will not be as much 
as their wages would amount to. Dr. Cunningham states, 
that in Scotland many persons labor twenty hours out of the 
twenty-four, and yet cannot obtain a support. Circumstan- 
ces must determine the amount of wages which a conscien- 
tious man would give. 

It is in vain that we call upon abolitionists to tell us what 
is the duty of men, under existing circumstances. The 
truth is, there are insuperable difficulties in the way of those 
who would liberate the slaves. Admit, if you please, that 
Mississippi is bound, as a State, to liberate all her slaves 
without delay. Still the question returns: what is the 
dut}?" of individuals living in Mississippi, so long as she re- 
fuses to do this? 

You may appeal to the sympathies of men, talk of weep- 
ing women, and all that ; but the question still returns, 
what are men to do under existing circumstances? Gladly 
would they place the slaves in a better condition ; but dif- 
ficulties press upon them on every side. Yet abolitionism 
denounces them as upholding the vilest system of oppres- 
sion, and seeks to exclude them from the church of Christ. 

In all the cases I have presented, the relation continues; 
but the cruelty against which the gentleman declaims, is not 
found. Let him, if he can, point out one passage or one 
principle in the Bible, by which, under such circumstances, 
it is proved sinful. Such an argument would be worth 
more than all his declamation. Why does he hesitate to 
come to the source of all light, and from it establish his 
proposition ? 



ON SLAVERY. 107 

5. I now offer my fifth general argument against the 
doctrine of my opponent, that slave-holding is in itself sin- 
ful, viz: this doctrine leads its advocates to pursue a course 
of conduct widely different from that pursued by the inspired 
Apostles — a course of conduct deeply injurious to society, 
and especially to the slaves, whose happiness they profes- 
sedly seek. They do not go, for example, into Kentucky, 
and calmly and kindly reason on this subject, with the 
slave-holders, who are supposed to be living in sin, out of 
that Book, which both parties acknowledge to be the only 
infallible rule of right. They remain at a distance, publish 
books, pamphlets and papers, like that of Duncan, in which 
slave-holders receive indiscriminate denunciation and indis- 
criminate slander. They get up meetings, make speeches, 
tell anecdotes of cruelty, and work themselves up into great 
excitement. The slave-holder is slandered and denounced ; 
but he is not kindly reasoned with. These zealous reform- 
ers venture not amongst the benighted people whom they 
would reform. 

Did the Apostles of Christ assail sin in this way ? Did 
Paul remain at Jerusalem, and write abusive letters against 
the Pagans? Far from it. Like a man and a Christian, 
he went and stood in the midst of Mars Hill, and said to 
the superstitious multitudes — ^' Ye men of Athens, I perceive 
that in all things ye are too superstitious ; for as I passed 
by and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this 
inscription — To the unknown God,'' etc. If a neighbor of 
yours were acting very improperly, you would not expect 
to reform him by abusing him to another neighbor. The 
Apostles did not collect at Jerusalem, and form a society 
against Paganism. They went amongst them and reasoned 
with them, face to face. [Time expired. 



108 DISCUSSION 

Tliuisday, Oct. 2, 1845. 

[MR. BLANC hard's FIFTH SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen Moderators^ and Gentlemen and LadieSj Fel- 
low-Citizens : 

At the close of last evening's debate, my brother Rice 
seemed still to complain, that I had not, as holding the 
affirmative in this discussion, taken the question directly to 
the words of Scripture. I must reply again to his difficulty, 
as I have done before : First — I advance no sentiments in 
this place which I do not hold myself ready to prove from 
the Word of God, All the principles upon which my argu- 
ments have been based, are written out in full in the sacred 
Scriptures. I rest my opposition to slavery upon the one- 
bloodism of the New Testament. All men are equal, be- 
cause they are of one equal blood. Secondly — I reply, that 
I have not come directly to the words of Scripture as yet, 
(though I am certainly disposed to accommodate my bro- 
ther,) because I supposed the interests of truth to require the 
course I take, so far at least as the value of this argument is 
concerned. And I confess it seems to me a novel thing in 
forensic argument for the negative to become the affirmative, 
and assume to dictate the line of discussion. I supposed that 
my brother would not give his time to complaining, but 
reply, or prove his own sentiments, if he has any. As he 
seemed at a loss for work to do, I playfully suggested to him 
to occupy his spare time in the singing of anthems, until I 
came to the argument from the words of the Old Testament. 
It is not my purpose ",o consume this discussion in verbal 
criticisms and logical hair-splitting; quoting and re-quoting 
about a dozen lexicons, and as many commentaries, from the 
beginning of this debate to the end. But I would not have 
you suppose me anxious to decline such a discussion at the 
proper time. I am determined that my friend shall have an 
opportunity to display all his learning and skill, and treat us 
to the sense of doulos and Ebedh, in the Hebrew and Greek 
lexicons, and in the commentators, as long, at least, as you 



ON SLAVERY. 109 

will be disposed to listen. But let us possess our souls in 
patience ! 

My friend asks me for the evidence of the truth of Mr. 
Giddings' statement, that the slaves to the Seminole Indians 
preferred Indian slavery to slaver}'' among the whites. I 
reply. The evidence of it is found in every shilling of the 
40,000,000 of dollars paid by the people of the United 
States for the destruction of a few Seminole Indians for the 
breaking up of the haunts of runaway negroes who had 
taken refuge among them ; and w^ho lived with them as 
their slaves. The whole object of the war was to bring 
back those runaway negroes, who had taken refuge in the 
Indian country to escape slavery to their white owners in 
the southern States. 

There is a large class of topics introduced by my friend, 
at different times, which I have purposely omitted to notice, 
but which I have not forgotten. Generally, when the ob- 
jection is not a very large one, it is economy to wait and 
put several together — enough to make a mouthful — before 
undertaking to reply. 

For example, he asserts, and repeats the assertion, that 
abolitionists have aggravated the condition of the slaves, and 
have rivetted their chains. Then, in another part of his 
argument, he stated that slavery is so much improved of 
late years, that he would lead one to suppose they were vir- 
tually free, and almost ready to be actually so. I shall 
briefly sum up all he said on these points : first giving you 
a key of judgment by which you may always tell whether 
a man is uttering truth or error. If a man is defending 
truth, all the parts of his argument will commonly be con- 
sistent with each other. But if he is teaching error, one 
part of his argument will be sure to break its head against 
another. 

Because, as was said by Mr. Webster, in the trial of the 
Knapps, "every truth in the universe is consistent with 
every other truth. " Let a man speak at length, and if he 
is defending error, you will see one part of his argument 



110 DISCUSSION. 

evermore running against the other, and breaking it in 
pieces. 

In illustration of this truth, I will read several of my 
friend's propositions in the present debate. In the first 
place, he said, " there never was so much money and time 
spent in the South, as at present, for the instruction and edu- 
cation of the slaves." In another part of his argument, he 
said that slavery was greatly "improved" of late years. In 
another part, that abolitionism had, within a few years, bro- 
ken up all the schools for slaves, and had rivetted the chains 
closer upon their unhappy limbs, and was driving them in 
coffles to the South. In another part, he said that, in Vir- 
ginia, the laws were disregarded, and the slaves were still 
taught to read. I might pursue this farther. But I do not 
wish to be or to seem unkind. I deplore his error. He prob- 
ably thinks that I am in error. We can honestly hold these 
opinions of each other, and you are empannelled as an im- 
partial jury, to try the question between us, who is right ? 

I will, however, just read a paragraph or two, bearing up- 
on the question whether abolitionists have broken up schools 
in the South: or, whether our agitation of the subject of 
slavery has produced all the evils attributed to it. I have 
here a recent pamphlet by Rev. Hugh S. Fullerton, a re- 
spectable minister of Chillicothe presbytery, belonging to 
tlie same General Assembly with Mr. Rice ; which says :— • 

" The Assembly declare that the severity of the slave 
laws, and the sensitiveness of the slave-holders is mainly 
attributable to abolitionists. And yet it is a fact, that has been 
shown times without number, that the most of these laws 
are from fifty to one hundred and fifty ^years old. And thaC 
this sensitiveness has existed ever since slavery has existed. 
Rev. Dr. Hill, of Virginia, in the last N. S. Assembly, 
brought the same charges against abolitionists. And yet, 
before he finished his speech, he said, — That when'he was 
a boy, but twelve years old, he was obliged to take his 
father's slaves to the woods, when he would teach them to 
read. This, I am told, is not less than sixty years ago 



ON SLAVERY. HI 

More than fifty years have passed since Rev. Dr. Wilson, 
(late President of the Ohio University,) established a Sab- 
bath school, in a little village in South Carolina. He was 
compelled, by threats of violence, to withdraw his school 
from the village. About thirty years ago, Rev. Dr. Bishop, 
( late President of Miami University, ) was more than once 
presented to the grand jury, for opening a Sabbath school 
for slaves, in Lexington, Ky. And now the blame of these 
severe laws, and this exquisite sensitiveness, is laid at the 
door of abolitionists." — Pam. p. 15. 

This is giving to abolitionism, a power of retrospective 
action, more than fifty years before it was born. I request 
special notice, that Dr. Bishop, not unknown in this region, 
was more than thirty years ago presented to a Lexington 
grand jury, for teaching slaves in Sabbath school. Yet, we 
are told, vauntingly, that Kentucky has no statute opposed 
to the education of slaves ! Grant that teaching slaves is 
not expressly, and in terms, prohibited ; yet, the laws make 
their condition such as to render their not being instructed, 
a moral certainty. I will just read what my friend says :— 
*' There is no law against teaching slaves to read, in Ken- 
lucky y Yet, he says, also, that abolitionism broke up all 
the schools in Kentucky. What is this but a confession by 
Dr. Rice, that slavery, and its friends, out of spite toward 
abolitionism, broke up the schools for slaves in Kentucky, 
against law? This is worse for him than if there were a 
laio against teaching slaves. I will, moreover, prove shortly, 
that slavery and the instruction of the slaves, cannot co-ex- 
ist. That enlightened slaves will not remain slaves ; i. e, 
that ignorance is of slavery itself. Thus, I will bring for- 
ward the very points which he calls for, in due time. But, 
I respectfully suggest to my friend, that he had better answer 
the arguments v/hich I do adduce, while they are fresh, in- 
stead of calling for those which I do not adduce. It seems 
to my brother, that if I were to bring any other arguments 
but just the ones which I presem he could get along better. 

And now, gentlemen moderators, and respected fellow- 



112 DISCUSSION 

citizens, though it is unpleasant to dwell upon the subject 
of cruelty to slaves, I must briefly advert to one fact. Last 
night I adduced a statement by the Rev. James Nourse, of 
Milllin county. Pa., a gentleman with whom I am acquainted, 
who said that a minister had, on a visit to a ministerial brother, 
found that he had tied up to his gate-post a female slave, for 
the purpose of flogging her ; — that he plead with him not to 
whip her, but that he did lash her severely. As an oflsct 
against this statement, which is in a printed volume, com- 
piled by a committee, who published a book of statistics of 
slavery, my brother receives the chance testimony of a 
INIr. Lindsley, a member of his church, no\v in this house, 
who says the fact was not so. I refer to this matter, not to 
controvert Mr. Lindsley's statement. I cannot find in my 
heart to comment severely on him. Seeing his pastor, whom 
he loves, embarked in this unfortunate undertaking, he natu- 
rally wished to throw him a plank. Yet, I must say, that 
for my own part, I am not influenced by testimony coming 
in this way : mere oral testimony, struck out by debate — 
a side whisper thrown in to rebut a printed document, long 
spread out before the country, and never answered or dis- 
puted. I know Mr. Nourse, and I do not think it probable 
he would make two contradictory statements of the same 
fact. 

Moreover, as to the cruelties of slavery, I may be com- 
pelled — though I was not, by nature, designed for a surgeon 
or butcher, or to look on pain unmoved — to consider the 
lacerations and scourging of slaves at length. I hate this 
topic of the cruelties of slavery ; yet, after what has been 
said, I must devote a few minutes to its consideration, wdiich 
I shall do in a short speech. • 

There are three circumstances, w^hich, when you see, you 
wdll feel the force of; which show that the slave is liable to 
worse cruelties than the brute. I wish this proposition to be 
distinctly understood. I say not, that the slave is worse 
treated than the brute — that is not my proposition. My 
friend is not happy in quoting mj:' ^cmarks^ and, therefore. I 



ON SLAVERY. 113 

am, perhaps,'over-particular. I say there are three circum- 
cumstances, each of which goes to show that the slave is 
liable to many cruelties to which the brute is not, and to 
worse cruelties than brutes are. First — the slave is of 
a race superior to brutes. He is a man, with soul and body, 
and made in the image of his God. "After his own like- 
ness created he himP He belongs to an order of beings as 
high above animals as that platform on which his God hath 
placed him, " a little lower than the aiigels^^ is above the 
bottom of the stye! Now, because he is so superior to 
brutes, he is capable of provoking his master worse than 
brutes, and thus is exposed to greater cruelty. That is the 
point which I make. I have seen a man smite his iist 
against a post, which had hurt him, though, being an inani- 
mate object, he will not punish a post much. But a very irri- 
table man will do that. The same man will beat an ox worse 
than he will a post, because an intelligent creature. And he 
will beat a horse still worse, for a similar reason : the horse 
provokes him worse. And if we travel on, up through the 
immense vacuum, between the brute and the human race, 
and remember that when a man undertakes to make intelli- 
gence property, he has got his match, you see, at once, 
that a man can provoke another man a thousand times worse 
than a brute can ; and if he is in the power of his hand, as the 
brute is, then comes that horrid, haggling cruelty, undiscribea- 
ble for its savage excess, which man practices upon man alone. 
The "New Orleans Picayune," of Tuesday, June 10, 
1845, contains a late example of this monstrous inhumani- 
ty; and the New Orleans Tropic states that the Attorney 
General, who was consulted, gave his opinion, that there is 
no law by which the owner of Auguste, or the jailer, could 
be punished, for their merciless brutality. m 

' The case, here detailed at length, is this: A young slave 
boy, named Auguste, was sent by his owner to the jail of 
the first municipality, and, so flogged, for a succession of 
days, that he Avas one mass of putridity. He was discov- 
ered by his falling down, when attempting to crawl home ; 
8 



114 DISCUSSION 

was placed by humane persons on a window-shutter, face 
downward, and carried to the hospital ; where some of the 
first physicians examined him, and pronounced that there 
was little hope of his life. This is not from an abolition 
publication, but from the New Orleans Picayune, of June 
10th, ult. 

Remember, that this inhumanity was perpetrated at the 
police jail, of the first municipality, where it is customary 
for slaves to be sent to be whipped, and where the lash is ap- 
plied according to the direction of masters, or the flogger 
loses his fee. 

Remember, too, that the Attorney General has given his 
opinion, that there is no law in Louisiana by which this out- 
rage could be punished ! It is true, that some citizens, dis- 
gusted at the shocking enormity, interposed and remonstra- 
ted. And, I thank the living God, that not all men are yet 
brutes, who are involved in this brutal system ; that, even 
in New Orleans, some sentiment of humanity still remains. 

I adduce this instance to show that such is slavery — that 
cruelty is of its essence ; not to show that slave-holders are 
monsters, and not men. They are men like ourselves in 
their condition ; men whose race God made upright ; but 
they have sought out many inventions ; and one of the most 
infernal and unaccountable of them all, is, that man should 
make human beings property. 

And now, what signifies the pretence that abolitionists 
slander slavery by tales of cruelty. 

Tell me not that such revolting inhumanities are incredi- 
ble ; that masters are kind and gentle, etc., etc. Human na- 
ture is a streaked thing ; and the heart of man is hard and 
soft, in streaks. The same person may be gentle and kind 
to his equals, but a savage monster to his slaves. And 
when the owner of a slave is provoked, and the law puts it 
in his power; as there is no animal which can provoke 
like man, so none were ever known so to maul, and muti- 
late, and haggle the victims of their rage. 
' But as to the possibility of such diabolical cruelties actu- 



ON SLAVERY. - 115 

ally existing-, or whether they are only mere false reports 
and stories of abolitionists, I have an authority, which, I 
know, my brother will be glad to hear quoted, viz: his own 
synod of Kentucky. I will quote from a document prepar- 
ed by some men whose names stand high with him, no 
others than his own father-in-law, Mr. Burch, Nathan H. 
Hall, of Lexington, President Young, of Danville, Breck- 
enridge, of Louisville, and others — all Kentuckians, and most 
of them slave-holders. This committee of the Synod of 
Kentucky, in a published address on slavery, which they 
were appointed to prepare, say: 

" Cruelty may be carried to any extent, provided life be 
spared. Mangling, imprisonment, starvation, every species 
of torture may be inflicted upon him, and he has no redress. 
But not content with thus laying the body of the slave de- 
fenceless at the foot of the master, our system proceeds still 
further, and strips him, in a great measure, of all protection 
against the inhumanity of every other white man who may 
choose to maltreat him." 

[" In Kentucky the slave has the same protection that the 
child has."] — Lectures on Slavery, by N. L. Rice, p. 17. 

Synod add : "In describing such a condition, we may well 
adopt the language of Sacred Writ — 'Judgment is turned 
away backward, and justice standeth afar o^\ for truth is 
fallen in the streets, and equity cannot enter. And the Lord 
saw it, and it displeased Him that there was no judgment.' 

" Such is the essential character of our slavery." 

Address of Synod of Ky. p. 6. 

Again : as to the infliction of barbarous cruelties, synod say : 

" There are now, in our whole land, two millions of human 
beings exposed, defenceless to every insult and every injury 
short of maiming or death, which their fellow-men may 
choose to inflict. They suffer all that can be inflicted. by wan- 
ton caprice, by grasping avarice, by brutal lust, by malignant 
spite, and by insane anger. Their happiness is the sport of 
every whim and the prey of every passion that may occa- 
sionally, or habitually infest the master's bosom. If we 



1 1 Q nscussioN. 

could calculate the amount of ivo endured ly ill-treated 
slaves, it would overwhelm every compassionate heart ; it 
would move even the obdurate to sympathy." [Synod seem 
to think that my brother himself must feel for their intolera 
ble sufferings ; but they proceed.] 

" There is also a vast sum of suffering inflicted upon the 
slave by humane masters^ as a punishment for that idleness 
and misconduct which slavery naturally produces. The 
ordinary motives to exertion in man are withdrawn from the 
slave. Some unnatural stimulus must then be substituted, 
and the whip presents itself as the readiest and most efficient. 
But the application of the whip to produce industry is like 
the application of the galvanic fluid to produce muscular 
exertion." — Synod^s Address^ p. 13. 

My friend, he tells us, is exceedingly anxious to get this 
discussion into the Bible. Let him now take up his Bible, 
and tell us where, in the Old or New Testament, he finds a 
system like this ; and show that Christ approved of it. This 
is the Synod of Kentucky's plain description of slavery — 
not of its cruel laws and adjuncts — but slavery itself; a sys- 
tem to the carrying on of which, the Synod show that cruel 
punishment is as necessary, as a whip is in driving a wagon. 

I shall now quote an author, as respectable as any I have 
adduced, still further to show the actual sufferings of slaves 
under this system ; I mean the Rev. David Rice ; whose 
memory is justly honored as one of the first pioneers of 
civilization and religion in the wilds of Kentucky. He 
was one of the framers of her constitution, and went to sleep 
with his fathers, respected and beloved by all. Nor do I 
think the worse of him for being, collaterally, one of my 
brother's ancestors ; but I commend his doctrines to the notice 
of his posterity. 

In his speech in the convention to form the constitution 
of Kentucky, 1790, Dr. Rice says: 

" The master may, a^id often does, inflict upon him (the 
slave) all the 'punishment the human body is capable of 
bearing f^ 



ON SLAVERY. 117 

And. as I have sliown, the one circumstance, that slaves 
are capable of provoking their masters as much worse than, 
brutes, as they are superior to them, shows fully the reason 
why they are often subjected to inhuman barbarities which 
brutes never suffer. 

My second proposition on the subject of cruelties is, That 
there are a multitude of crimes and offences, which slaves 
can commit, and for which they are punished, which brutes 
cannot commxit. 

Slaves may upbraid, insult, and reproach their owners ; 
but I never heard of but one brute 's rebuking his master. 
A special power and permission was given to an ass to re- 
prove Balaam. A horse will not commonly be whipped for 
petty larceny. An ox cannot have his leg broken for in- 
solence. There is thus a large class of offences which 
slaves can commit, which render them liable to more and 
greater cruelty than brutes. On this point I have only farther 
to quote Dr. David Rice, in the convention which formed the 
I^ntucky constitution. 

" He. [the slave] is a rational creature, reduced by legisla- 
tion to the state of a hrute^ and thereby deprived of every 
privilege of humanity." [The very teachings of the aboli- 
tionists of the present day, rife and rampant in the conven- 
tion which formed the Kentucky constitution.] 

" The brute, (adds Dr. R.,) may steal or rob to supply his 
hunger ; but the slave, though in the most starving condi- 
tion, dare oioi do either^ on fenalty of death, or some severe 
punishment." 

Compare this bold language of the progenitor, with the 
talk which you now hear from this his descendant. But 
enough on the point, that slaves are punished for a multi- 
tude of crimes and offences for which brutes are not ; and 
their condition, therefore, in this respect, worse than that of 
animals. 

3. My third and last point, showing that the slave's con- 
dition is, in some respects, worse than that of brute animals. 
is this: — That the oiv?ier of a brute is not goaded to cruelty 



118 DISCUSSION 

by the guilt of ownershijo. Oh ! an upbraiding- conscience 
often makes a man a ruffian ! There is nothing so cruel 
as the criminal in heart, conscious of guilt; yet unwilling to 
make reparation. And this is precisely the condition of the 
slave-holder, with the spectacle of his crushed and stricken 
slaves perpetually before him, whom he has reduced to, or 
holds upon, the dead level of the brute, in whose state they 
are, according to Dr. Rice, and the slave code. As the 
wretched creatures move to and fro across the kitchen, 
before his eyes, slinking to their unpaid tasks, that con- 
science, which was placed in the bosom for wise and just 
purposes — Oh! that conscience, gnawing evermore at his 
heart-strings, drives him to his cups; and in the triple 
intoxication of liquor, remorse, and rage, he wreaks his 
savage vengeance on the slave, because he has first deprived 
him of being a man. 

; I have now shown you three distinct grounds on which 
slaves are liable to more and worse cruelties than brutes. 
And it has struck me, how patiently the justifiers of sla- 
very, v/ho are scandalized at the cruel stories of abolition- 
ists, will listen while I am proving general propositions, a 
thousand times worse for slavery than particular inhuman 
acts. No one winces under this. But if I state a fact — an 
instance of barbarity, that has actually occurred, the cry is 
raised, that slave-holders are slandered ; and shoals of testi- 
mony, from wincing auditors, is got up to disprove it. Yet 
it. is necessary, not only to prove general principles of cru- 
elty against slavery, but to illustrate and impress them by 
particular facts which they cause; lying, like all general 
principles, at the root of individual cases. 

I now give you the testimony of the Rev. Francis 
Hawiey, pastor of a Baptist church in Wallingford, Con- 
necticut — taken from a work called "Slavery as it is," 
■which contains the testimony of one thousand witnesses, 
most of them from slave States, on the subject of slavery. 
It was compiled with the greatest care, and every precau- 
tion taken to secure correct testimony. Where unknown 



ON SLAVERY. 119 

jtersons sent testimony to the committee who made the book, 
jsuch persons were required to refer to some persons mutu- 
ally known, that the committee might, by correspondence, 
ascertain the credibility of the witness. 

I now read the testimony of Rev. Francis Hawley, one of 
these witnesses, who has resided fourteen years in North and 
South Carolina. The Baptist State Convention [N. C] a few 
years since, made him their general agent to visit the chur- 
ches in their bounds. He says : 

" I will now give a few facts, showing the workings of the 
system. Some years since, a Presbyterian minister moved 
from North Carolina to Georgia. He had a negro man of 
an uncommon mind. For some cause, I know not w^hat, 
this minister whipped him most unmercifully. He next 
nearly drowned him. He then put him in the fence. This 
is done by lifting up the corner of a worm fence, and then 
putting the feet through — the rails serve as stocks. He kept 
him there some time — how long I was not informed — but 
the poor slave died in a few days. And, if I was rightly 
informed, nothing was done about it either in Church or 
State. After some time, he moved back to North Carolina, 

and is now a member of presbytery. I have heard him 

preach, and have been in the pulpit with him. May C4od 
forgive me !" 

"In R — county. North Carolina, lived a Mr. B., who had 
the name of being a cruel master. Three or four winters 
since, his slaves were engaged in clearing a piece of 
new land. He had a negro girl about fourteen years old, 
whom he had severely whipped a few days before, for not 
performing her task. She again failed. The hands left the 
field for home. She w^ent with them a part of the way, and 
fell behind. But the negroes thought she would soon be 
along. The evening passed away, and she did not come. 
They finally concluded that she had gone back to the new 
ground to lie by the log-heaps that were on fire. But they 
w^ere mistaken She had sat down at the foot of a largo 
pine. She was thinly clad — the night was cold and rainy. 



120 DISCUSSION 

In the morning the poor girl was found : but she was speech- 
less, and died in a short time." 

" While travelling as agent for the North Carolina Bap- 
tist State Convention, I attended a three days meeting in 
Gates county. Friday, the first day, passed off Saturday 
morning came, and the pastor of the church who lived a 
few miles off did not make his appearance. The day passed 
off, and no news from the pastor. On Sabbath morning, he 
came hobbling along, having but little use of one foot. He 
soon explained ; said he had a hired negro man, who, on 
Saturday morning, gave him a little slack jaw. Not having 
a stick at hand, he fell upon him with his fist and foot, and, 
in kicking him, he injured his foot so seriously that he could 
not attend meeting on Saturday." 

" I was present and saw Rev. J — W — , of Mecklenburg 
county hire out four slaves to work in the gold mines in 
Burke county. The Rev, H. M — , of Orange county, sold 
for nine hundred dollars a negro man to a speculator, on 
Monday of a camp-meeting. 

" Runaway slaves are frequently hunted with guns and 
dogs. I was once out on such an excursion with my rrfle 
and two dogs. I trust the Lord has forgiven me this hein- 
ous wickedness ! Yours, for the oppressed, 
"Colebrook, Conn. March 18, 1839. Fhancis Hawley." 

The above are not selected for any speciality of cruelty, 
though sufficiently horrid. They fall indefinitely short of 
a mass of facts which might be taken from the book, in point 
of savageness and suffering. They are simply ordinaiy 
household specimens ot slave-holding society. • 

I pause here to remind you that my brother told us, that 
if the abolitionists would go down south, and prosecute the 
church members who arc guilty of cruel treatment to slaves, 
they would be turned out of the church. You here see 
what ministers and members compose the courts to try such 
offenders. 

\^ And now, why have I read these things ? to show that 
/ 



ON SLAVERY. 121 

slave-holders are are not men ? No : but to show that they 
are men, under cogent temptations to be cruel men. 

I will here anticipate the answer of my brother to one 
point. He will tell you, perhaps, that great cruelties are 
practiced also in the free States, and upon white men. He 
says, that if I venture to appeal to your sympathies against 
the slave relation, on account of these inhumanities, he 
"hoped" — yes, that was his word — he "Ao^ei" he should 
be able to find a thousand instances of husbands treating 
their wives cruelly, so as to satisfy you that according to my 
reasoning marriage is wrong in itself. The best I can say 
is, that I "Aope" he did not mean what he said ; but that his 
expression was a lapsus linguce. ; and that he does not seri- 
ously" hope" to find domestic cruelties to cover slavery with. 
I reply, that, when my friend saw the graves in Cincinnati, 
of the wife and children who had been murdered by the 
husband, he saw an instance of punisJied cruelty. There 
is all the difference in the world between 'punished and un- 
punished cruelty. Punished cruelty shows a healthy condition 
of society : while, if a man can strip and flog my daughter, 
and go unquestioned for it, it shows — what is just the fact 
in slave-holding society — that every person in like condition 
is liable to the like outrage, without redress. And this 
proves cruelty inherent in slavery. 

Now let him show, if he can, the elder, or the minister, 
or the member, who has been dealt with by his church for 
such acts of barbarity, in any slave State, in this age and 
country, or any other. Or let him find among all the re- 
ported cases, one instance where a master has suffered capi- 
tally for murdering his slave. It will then be time to compare 
cruelties to slaves with the punished cruelties gathered up in 
the free States. High legal authorities assure me that there 
never was one such case. 

I have now done with the subject of cruelties to slaves. 
These brutalities offend the public nostril, and to exhibit 
them, is against my inclination and my taste. Would to 
God there were no necessity for such developements. I 



122 ^^>. DISCUSSION 

should be thankful if the occasion which has made them 
necessary, were forever removed. 

I am told I have yet ten minutes. I wish here to direct 
your minds farther, to the statement made by my brother, 
that in Kentucky, the slave has the same protection that the 
child has. 

Dr. Rice has told you that I misrepresented and perverted 
his meaning, last night. I acknowledge that a defective 
impression would have been left, if I had no more to say 
than I then said ; but I was drawn off by the introduction 
of the subject of cruelties ; the abolitionists having been, 
repeatedly arraigned, as slanderers of the South. 

I now wish to present exactly what Dr. Rice affirms con- 
cerning the protection enjoyed by Kentucky slaves. I read 
the whole paragraph from his pamphlet, p. 17. 

" If, then, it be true, as Dr. Beecher and the Editor of the 
Watchman would have the people believe, that the system 
of slavery cannot be sustained, unless the master have un- 
limited control over his slaves, it must soon be, abolished, 
and the abolitionists need give themselves little farther 
trouble. In Kentucky the slave has the same protection that 
a child has." 

Protection from what? I ask. Why, from the cruel dispo- 
sition of the master ; for, says Dr. Rice, " if it be true that 
slavery cannot be sustained unless the master have unlimited 
control over the slave," the ^^ protection" whch Dr. Rice 
declares that the slave has, is ^^from this unlimited control." 
If he does not mean this, let him explain his meaning. (A 
pause.) Now I desire to show that this proposition is as 
entirely without authority and sanction, in truth, as any other 
proposition in human speech. My argument will be but 
just entered on when I sit down. If, in Kentucky, there is 
no more protection for the child than for the slave, there is 
many a Kentucky Rachel will soon be weeping for her 
once free children, '^ refusing to be comforted because they 
are not." For such fate, every one knows, awaits the slave, 
and the slave, he says, is protected like the child. My bro- 



ON SLAVERY. 123 

ther means (he can mean nothing- else, having- quoted in the 
same connection, the Kentucky slave code) that the slave has 
the same protection from bodily injuries as the child of free 
parents. I will quote Dr. David Rice on the subject of the 
power of the master to inflict bodily injuries on the slave. 
He says : 

" The slave is a rational creature, reduced by the power of 
legislation, to the state of a brute, and thereby deprived of 
every privilege of humanity, that he may minister to the ease, 
luxury, lust, pride or avarice of another, no better than 
himself." 

" The law leaves the chastity of a female slave entirely in 
the power of her master. If a master attempts their chastity 
they dare neither resist nor complain." 

Is this the protection which Kentucky extends to her 
domestic relations? Is this the protection of a free child in 
Kentucky? 

Let us now see what protection the Kentucky slave has 
in his earnings. I still quote David Rice : 

" All the slave receives, is the bare means of subsistence, 
and that is not bestowed until he has earned it ; and then, 
not in proportion to his labor, nor out of regard to him, but 
for selfish purposes." — David Rice. 

Is that the protection Kentucky law gives to Kentucky 
children in their earnings ? If so, may God send Kentucky 
children a speedy deliverance ! Rather, may He send Ken- 
tucky a ministry who will explain the gospel to be what it 
is, a defence of human rights ; and especially the rights of 
the laboring poor. 

I have now but one minute left, which I will use in giv- 
ing notice that I will compare the condition of an orphan 
child in Kentucky, without mother, father, uncles or aunts, 
or any other natural protector, — with that of the slave, in 
respect to protection from cruelty. And surely in such a 
case, the slave must have an equal protection with the child, 
if anywhere. But before I have fully done with this state- 
ment of my opponent, you will see that it is a most unhap- 
py declaration for him that made it. _ {Time expired, ^ 



124 DISCUSSION 



[MR. rice's fifth SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen Moderators and Fellow-Citizens : 

No one, I presume, could learn from the speech of one 
hour, to which we have just listened, what is the subject 
under discussion. Those who heard, if not otherwise in- 
formed, would be likely to conclude, that I had undertaken 
to prove, that all the cruelties permitted by the laws of the 
slave-holding States, or practiced by wicked men, are right; 
and that Mr. B. was laboring to prove those cruehies sinful! 
If it was the purpose of the gentleman and his ten challen- 
gers to discuss that subject, why did they not propose the fol- 
lowing question: hit right to beat, abuse, and kill slaves? 
Why propose one subject for discussion, and then insist 
on discussing one radically different ? I do not intend to 
charge the gentlemen who invited this debate, with practi- 
cing deception; but certain it is, that their representative 
is spending his time on quite another theme. He might, 
with as much propriety, discuss the religious character of 
the grand Turk! What is the question before us? "/5 
slave-holding in itself sinful, and the relation between mas- 
ter and slave a sinful relation ? " Is every master a heinous 
and scandalous sinner, however kindly he may treat his 
slaves, and however conscientiously he may afford them re- 
lio-ious instruction ? Is a man to be condemned as a sinner, 
simply because he is a slave-holder? Have we heard one 
word from the gentleman on this subject ? He has occupied 
the time in declaiming concerning the cruel treatment of slaves 
which we, and indeed all decent men condemn as severely 
as he. Why has he spent an hour in denouncing what even 
the vilest men will not defend ? Is this community so de- 
graded ? Has public sentiment indeed become so corrupt, 
that all this denunciation is necessary to induce the people to 
detest inhuman cruelty ? Verily the gentleman pays you a 
poor compliment. 

I am resolved to keep the question under discussion dis- 



ON slavehy. 125 

tlnctly before the audience. We are discussing simply the 
relation between master and slave. Is it in itself sinful ? 
Must every man sustaining this relation forthwith dissolve it 
without regard to circumstances, or expose himself to just 
condemnation as a heinous sinner ? For let it not be forgot- 
ten, that if the relation is in itself sinful, it must be immedi- 
ately abandoned without regard to circumstances or conse- 
quences. But if there are circumstances which justify it, 
for the time being, circumstances must determine whether 
in any given case it is sinful. Then it would not be proper 
to revolutionize society and tear up its very foundations in the 
attempt to abolish it. 

I am fully pursuaded, the gentleman will not discuss the 
question before us. Mark the prediction : he will not do it. 
Nevertheless, I will follow him in his remarks for a time. 
He says, he finds his principles justified by " the one-blood- 
is??i'^ of the New Testament. Are we to understand him as 
saying, that under all circumstances he would insist on car- 
rying out in practice his doctrine that all men are born free 
and equal ? Would he have every young woman in Eng- 
land claim to be in all respects equal to Victoria ? Does it 
follow from the fact that all are born equal, that all are to be 
reduced to the same condition in life? Would he denounce 
Queen Victoria, simply because she is Q,ueen of England? 
Is every king or emperor of Europe a heinous sinner, sim- 
ply because he exercises arbitrary power ? If not, where 
is the stopping point? How far may circumstances and the 
good of society justify restricting the privileges or liberties of 
individuals ? 

I claim no right to dictate to Mr. B. what course he 
shall pursue in his argument ; but I have the right, and it 
is my duty to expose his departure from the question before 
us, and his failure to adduce even the shadow of evidence 
of the truth of the proposition he affirms. I cannot, indeed, 
spend my time in singing psalms, as he suggests : but if he 
will furnish me with a few of the select songs sung by 
Bome of the colored fraternity during the late abolition con- 



126 DISCUSSION 

vention in this city, I shall be glad to read them for the edi- 
fication of the audience. Perhaps Mr. Clark, the celebra- 
ted abolitionist singer, can furnish some of them. Shall I 
hope to obtain a few of them ? 

Mr. B. has told us truly, that when men contend for the 
truth their arguments will be consistent with each other. It 
does not follow, however, that his version of them will be 
so. Whilst I deny that my arguments are inconsistent with 
each other, I feel it to be my duty to apply his principles to 
his own statements ; which, if not inconsistent with each 
other, are contrary to truth. In one of his speeches last eve- 
ning, he made a statement which, in at least four particulars, 
turns out to be incorrect. He told us that the General As- 
sembly of the Presbyterian church, of 1818, passed a law 
making it obligatory on all the slave-holding members in the 
churches under their care to instruct their slaves, and pre- 
pare them for emancipation ; that Rev. J. D. Paxton, then of 
Virginia, obeyed the law of the church, instructing and 
emancipating his slaves ; that he was in consequence of 
pursuing this course, denounced as an abolitionist, and 
obliged to leave his church, and go to a free State ; and 
that no other individual had pursued a similar course. Now, 
in the first place, the General Assembly passed no such law. 
They recommended instruction with reference to emanci- 
pation. In the second place, Mr. Paxton was not the only 
individual who instructed and liberated his slaves. It is no- 
torious, that many others have done the same thing. In the 
third place, it is not true that he was obliged to leave his 
church because he instructed and liberated his slaves. He 
had some difficulty with his church, in consequence of some 
discourses on the subject of slavery, the precise character of 
which I do not know. In the fourth place, he did not go to 
a free State, but removed to Kentucky, and took the pastoral 
charge of the Presbyterian church in Danville — one of the 
largest and most respectable churches in the State. More- 
over, he is now pastor of a church near Shelbyville, in the 
same State ; and no minister in the State enjoys more full/ 



ON SLA'V'ERY. 127 

the confidence of the churches, than he. So much for the 
gentleman's facts. 

' But what was my inconsistency ? Why, I said that th^, 
abolition excitement had riveted the chains on the slave, and 
ao-oravated every evil connected with his condition ; and I 
said again, that, recently, the condition of the slaves has 
been much improved ; that there never was so much done 
to afford them religious instruction, as at this time. — 
This is all true, and all consistent. Abolitionism had its 
day ; and the excitement it produced, extended through the 
length and breadth of the land. It put it in the power of 
demagogues and designing men to break up the Sabbath 
schools in which the colored people were instructed, and to 
counteract, to a considerable extent, all efforts made by 
Christians to improve their condition. In Kentucky-, where 
there was a strong disposition amongst the people to adopt a 
plan of gradual emancipation, candidates for the Legisla- 
ture, however favorable to such an object, were unwilling to 
avow their sentiments, lest the opposing party, by branding 
them with abolitionism, might defeat their election. Such 
was the state of things, that any effort to improve the condi- 
tion of the slave population, seemed almost hopeless. 

But, thank God, a reaction has, to some extent, taken 
place. Christians have resumed their labors for the benefit 
ot the slaves. Prejudices have given way; and, in despite 
of abolitionism, the work of religious instruction is going 
forward. Southern and Western Christians are doing some- 
thing better than running slaves to Canada — an employment 
peculiar to abolitionists. Recently, a public meeting was 
held in Charleston, South Carolina, for the purpose of ma- 
turing plans for extending religious instruction more gene- 
rally to the slaves. One of the leading men in that Con- 
vention was Rev. C. C. Jones, who, though a man of no or- 
dinary talents, and of extensive learning, has devoted him- 
self, for more than twelve years, to the religious instruction 
of the negroes, and whose labors have been greatly blessed 
in the conversion of many of them. The Convention wa3 



128 DISCUSSION 

also attended "by prominent political gentlemen, wlio lent all 
their influence to carry forward the benevolent enterprize. 
They have published, and circulated extensively, the report 
of their proceedings. In some of the letters addressed to the 
meeting, I was pleased to see statements of the number of 
slaves in the different churches who could read. So far as 
I know, there has never been manifested so deep an interest 
in the religious instruction of the slaves. This interest ex- 
tends through the West and South. Masters are found in 
the South, who erect churches on their own plantations, and 
pay from $500 to $800 to ministers of the gospel to preach 
statedly to them. Abolitionism has, indeed, done much to 
retard and hinder this good work ; and its influence is still 
felt; but I rejoice to know, that the Christians in the slave- 
holding States manifest so fixed a determination to give to 
the slaves the word of life. 

Dr. Bishop, we are told, had difficulty in instructing slaves 
in Kentucky thirty years ago ; and hence it is inferred, that 
the destruction of the Sabbath schools, a few years since, 
was not caused by abolitionism. Many and great changes 
have taken place in Kentucky in thirty years. Public senti- 
ment has been gradually elevated and purified by the gos- 
pel; and, in process 4)f time, there was a disposition on the 
part of Christians to see the slaves more generally taught 
the glorious truths of divine revelation. To this there was 
no opposition of sufficient strength to prevent them. But 
the abolition excitement arose, and put it in the power of 
every demagogue to get up so much opposition, that in a lit- 
tle time, every school, I believe, was closed. Thus were the 
efforts of good men, to improve the condition of the slaves, 
effectually hindered by the ill-judged course of abolitionists. 
By the way, some of the best laws of Kentucky, relative to 
the slaves, have been very recently passed. At the time to 
which I have reference, it is true, there was no law against 
teaching the slaves to read ; but prejudice once excited, was as 
strong as law ; and that prejudice was excited by abolition- 
ists. Even, in Cincinnati, scenes were enacted in connection 



ON SLAVERY. 129 

with this excitement, and crueUies were practiced upon the 
colored population, which every respectable citizen must con- 
demn and denounce. Is it, then, surprising that, in Ken- 
tucky, the Sabbath schools were broken up ? 

But the gentleman dwells on the cruelty of wicked men 
toward the slaves, as if he were resolved to make the im- 
pression, that I have engaged to defend it, and he, in great 
benevolence, is laboring to convince you that it is sinful. — 
Surely, he regards the audience as very stupid, if he expects 
to convince them that all this declamation is to the point. I 
have been engaged in several debates, in which I thought 
my opponent pursued a singular course ; but I must confess, 
the gentleman excells them all ! [A laugh.] 

I have seen the book to which he refers as authority for 
the statement, that Rev. Mr. Nourse said he saw a minister 
publicly whipping a negro woman ; and it is not true that 
Mr. N. says he saw any such thing. He is made to say, 

that the Rev. Mr. told him that he saw Rev. Mr. 

do this thing. The amount of it is this : Rev. Mr. Nourse 
told Rev. Mr. Somebody, the Rev. Mr. Somebody saw Rev. 
Mr. Nobody do this cruel thing. I am done! — [a laugh.] — 
But, says the gentleman, these are 'printed documents. Un- 
fortunately, however, the fact that a story is printed^ is no 
evidence of its truth at this day. I have no confidence in 
this second-handed and third-handed testimony against the 
character of ministers of the gospel. They are no better 
than Romish traditions. Men print all sorts of things now- 
a-days. For example ; let me read an extract from the Ed- 
inhurg Witness^ a Scotch paper, professedly religious, the 
author of which professes to WTite what he knows. I have 
already referred to it. 

" What shall we think," says the writer, " of the state of 
society, where a minister of the gospel^ with credit to him- 
self, avails himself of the Sabbath for inflicting spet ial pun- 
ishment, as is usual, that field-labor may not be int( rrupted, 
and being engaged in flogging a poor negro, when the hour 
of worship comes, leaves his victim fastened to the ipo^t^ goes 



130 DISCUSSION 

I • 

to the house of prayer, conducts the worship, dispenses the 

communion, comes back, and, with unabated zeal, goes on 
with his barbarous work ?" 

I Of such couduct, this writer says, ministers of the gospel 
can be guilty "with credit to themselves," and it "is usu- 
al." I pronounce the whole statement one of the grossest 
slanders ever invented by the father of lies. I defy all abo- 
litionists to produce the slightest evidence of its truth. Such 
are the potent arguments by which abolitionists seek to abol- 
ish slavery ! Can we wonder that the people of the slave- 
holding States, thus slandered and outraged, have lost all 
confidence in the abolitionists, and utterly refuse to hear 
them ? 

' But the gentleman has brought forward the testimony of 
a Mr. Hawley, who brings serious charges against a certain 
minister, and against a Presbyterian elder. I place no con- 
fidence in such testimony. If he saw the things concerning 
which he testifies, he knew what was his duty as a Chris- 
tian. Why did he not inform the Session and the Presbyte- 
ry of the facts? Then had they refused to subject the offen- 
ders to the discipline of the church, he might, with proprie- 
ty, have denounced them. Mr. H. gives no names. I de- 
sire to know the names of the men. Then if the charges 
are false, they may vindicate themselves ; and if true, let them 
bear the reproach. Give us evidence that we have in our 
church such wretches, and I will prosecute them even to the 
highest court of the church. The gentleman shall not be 
troubled with the prosecution. But now suppose all these 
disgusting details of cruelty, to which we have been treat- 
ed, be true to the letter, does it follow that the relation of 
master and slave is in itself sinful? — that where no such 
cruelty is practiced, it is yet sinful? 

But a little colored boy in New Orleans, we are told, was 
cruelly beaten, and there was no law to protect him. Ad- 
mit the story to be true, I do not undertake to defend the 
laws of Louisiana. Are we discussing the question whether 
those laws are right or wrong ? There is no State whose 



ON SLAVERY. 131 

laws are what they should be on all subjects. Those of 
Kentucky are not by any means perfect. Yet the gentle- 
man ought not, in his denunciation, to forget that even the 
law of Moses permitted the master to enforce obedience by 
chastisement. — Exod. xxi : 20, 21. "And if a man smite 
his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his 
hand ; he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he 
continue a day or two, he shall not be punished : for he is 
his money J^ Will the gentleman say, this law related not 
to slaves, but to hired servants? This will not mend the 
matter ; for it will prove, that even hired servants might be 
severely chastised. The truth is clear, that the master was 
allowed to enforce obedience by chastisement, whilst all the 
protection possible was extended to the slave. Will Mr. B. 
denounce the Bible, and be governed by nature's light ? If 
so, we may hope, that he will not be so inconsistent as to 
abandon the Declaration of Independence, and permit the 
negroes to be deprived of the right to vote in making the laws 
by which they are to be governed. Just now he seems 
pressed by the principles of abolitionism. 

He has read what the Synod of Kentucky said against what 
is called the system of slavery. Am I liere to defend any 
system of slavery? Does the question before us relate to 
the system of American slavery 1 When I deny that slave- 
holding is in itself sinful, do I thereby defend all the laws by 
which in any of the States it may be regulated 1 Or do I 
approve the cruelty of wicked men 1 I agree with the Synod 
of Kentucky, that there is much evil connected with slavery. 
I believe that the State of Kentucky would do wisely to get 
rid of it. I do desire that it should everywhere come to 
an end. 

But Mr. B. has referred to my venerated kinsman. Rev. 
David Rice, to prove that in Kentucky the slave has not the 
same protection from the cruelty of his master, which a 
child has from the cruel treatment of his father. It is true, 
that David Rice was an eminently wise and good man — one 
whose memory is dear to many an aged disciple in Kentucky. 



132 DISCUSSION 

He said, slavery degrades human beings. Admit it; but is 
every slave-holder obliged thus to tread down his slaves, as 
much as the civil laws permit ? Or is a slave-holder who 
does no such thing, still chargeable with heinous and scan- 
dalous sin? But as to the protection afforded the slaves in 
Kentucky, does the pamphlet of Rev. David Rice treat of 
their 2)rese?it condition ? It was written when he was a young 
man, before the constitution was adopted. He lived to an 
advanced age, and has been a number of years in his grave. 
Plis pamphlet, therefore, can give no information concerning 
the state of things now. He spoke of slavery as it existed, 
not particularly in Kentucky, but in New York, and in other 
States. As to his anti-slavery views, it is proper to remark, 
that he was a member of the convention by which the con- 
titution of the State was formed. Standing in that position, 
he plead that slavery should be excluded by the constitution, 
and that Kentucky should be a free State. Would to God 
that convention had listened to him and adopted his views. 
My native State would have been greatly the gainer thereby. 
So the majority of the people, I presume, now believe. With 
my present views I would take the same ground, if placed in 
similar circumstances, which he took. But his wise counsels 
were not heeded ; and slavery was admitted. Our discus- 
sion relates exclusively to the duty of individuals living in 
those States where the evil has been admitted. David Rice, 
having failed to exclude slavery from the State, preached the 
gospel ever afterwards both to master and slave, just as did 
Paul and the other apostles of Christ. Never did he treat 
masters as criminals, simply because they were masters. 
Ho opposed the system, as it is called, but very properly dis- 
tinguished between the duty of the State and the duty of 
individuals living in the State, after slavery was admitted. I 
choose to pursue the same course. It is wrong, then, to quote 
that venerable man as teaching doctrines different from those 
I am defending. But abolitionism sustains itself by misrep- 
resentations of this kind. 

Whilst on the subject of cruelties, I remember, that very 



ON SLAVERY. 133 

recently a black man was murdered in the streets of Indian- 
apolis, for no crime whatever. Had such a thing happened 
in a slave-holding State, we should not soon have heard the 
last of it. It would have stood prominent in abolition books, 
tracts and papers. But it happened in a free State ; and 
therefore, we hear little concerning it. The gentleman has 
not had occasion to speak of it ! Why are such things so 
lightly passed over, when they occur in a free State, and so 
bitterly denounced when they occur in the slave-holding 
States ? Let impartial justice be done. 

But, as we have had so many facts stated, showing the 
cruelty of slave-holders, it may be proper for me also to 
state a few. Some years since, as I am credibly informed, 
a citizen of Danville, Ky., sold a negro woman from her hus- 
band to a slave-trader. It was soon known in the town ; 
and such was the excitement that he was constrained to fol- 
low the slave-holder, and re-purchase the woman at consid- 
erable loss. He could scarcely have lived there, if he had 
not done so. Not a great many years ago, a prominent citi- 
zen of Lexington came near being mobbed, because he had 
cruelly chastised a negro woman. And Dr. Drake, of Louis- 
ville, whilst travelling through Alabama, not long since, met 
a sheriff and his posse returning from the penitentiary where 
they had safely lodged a man who owned a plantation and a 
number of slaves. He had been convicted of the murder 
of one of his slaves, chiefly on circumstantial evidence de- 
rived through his slaves, and was sentenced for ten years, 
if my memory serves me. Such facts show the real state 
of feeling in the slave-holding States. 

It is, perhaps, true, as the gentlemen says, that a white 
man is rarely executed for the murder of a negro ; and I 
may add, they are not very frequently executed for the mur- 
der of white men. The laws, it is admitted, are not strictly 
executed. His non-resistant brethren of New England, how- 
ever, are for abolishing all capital punishment. Yet, our 
western abolitionists maintain that slave insurrections are 
right, and that it would be a damning sin to suppress one of 



134 DISCUSSION 

them ! May we not hope they will catch the pacific spirit 
of some of their eastern brethren? 

I must here say a few words in regard to the protection 
the slaves enjoy, from cruel treatment, in Kentucky. I did 
not say, as the gentleman seems to understand me, that the 
slave has all the advantages of a child, but simply that he 
is, by law, protected from cruelty on the part of the master. 
My remarks on this subject were made in view of the fol- 
lowing article in the Watchman of the Valley. 

^'■Nothing wrong in the relation itself. — Dr. Edward 
Beecher, at the late meeting of the Massachusetts Abolition 
society, adduced the following law case : a man was tried 
in North Carolina, for shooting his own female slave. Judge 
Ruffin decided, that, according to slave law, the act could not 
be pronounced criminal, because the master must have unli- 
mited control over the body of his slaves, or the system 
CANNOT STAND. In regard to this decision, the judge con- 
fessed, that he felt its harshness, and that every person in 
his retirement must repudiate it ; but in the actual state of 
things it must be so: there is no remedy^' 

"According to the decision, then, of a southern judge, 
extorted from him by the inexorable necessity of his legal 
logic, in opposition to his humane feelings, the relation of 
slavery, as constituted by law, is, in itself cruel, authorizing 
the unlimited control of the master over the body of his 
slave, life not excepted. Why ? Because without such 
control, the system could not stand ; i e. the relation could 
not exist, as it is now legally constituted. No sin in such a 
relation ? Then there is no sin, a Carolina jurist being 
judge, for doing whatever is necessary (be it stripes, torture, 
or death,) to preserve this sinless, lawful relation !" 

Dr. E. Beecher, and the editor, were agreed that the rela- 
tion of master and slave could not continue, unless the mas- 
ter had the right to kill his slave ! Now let us look at the 
law of Kentucky, on this subject, passed in 1830 — long 
since Dr. Bishop had his difficulty. You see, this law affords 
evidence conclusive, that the condition of the slaves has im- 



ON SLAVERY. 135 

proved, the gentleman's assertion to the contrary notwith- 
standing. The law is as follows : 

" If any owner of a slave shall treat such slave cruelly 
and inhumanly, so as in the opinion of the jury to endanger 
the life or limb of such slave, or shall not supply his slave 
with sufficient food and raiment, it shall and may be lawful 
for any person acquainted with the fact or facts, to state and 
set forth in a petition to the Circuit Court, the facts, or any 
of them aforesaid, of which the defendent hath been guilty, 
and pray that such slave or slaves may be taken from the 
possession of the owner, and sold for the benefit of such 
owner, agreeably to the 7th article of the Constitution." 

According to this law, you perceive, if a jury of twelve 
disinterested men can be convinced, that a master treats his 
slave cruelly, or fails to supply him with sufficient food and 
raiment, the slave is sold into better hands ; and the master 
pays the costs of the suit. Has the child more protection 
against the cruel treatment of a father ? May not a father 
chastise his child very severely without being exposed to the 
penalty of the civil law ? I do not undertake to defend the 
slave laws of Kentucky, but only to make good the state- 
ment called in question by the gentleman. 

I have now paid due attention to all the gentleman has 
offered. He says, I ought rather to answer the arguments he 
offers, than complain that he does not present others. The ques- 
tion under discussion is this : " Is slave-holding in itself sinful, 
and the relation between master and slave a sinful relation?" 
If he will mention one argument he has offered on this 
point, I will immediately reply to it. He and I agree that 
the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and prac- 
tice, and that nothing can be condemned as sinful, unless it 
can be shown to be contrary to that rule. If I were debat- 
ing with an infidel, I might take different ground ; but, as a 
minister of the gospel, he is bound to abide by the decision 
of the law which he holds to be inspired of God. Has he 
adduced one solitary passage of Scripture to prove that slave- 



136 , DISCUSSION 

holding is in itself sinful ? What single text has he quoted? 
Not one. Then what have I to answer ? 

His great argument, if argument it can be called, is this : 
Wicked masters treat their slaves cruelly ; therefore the rela- 
tion between master and slave is a sinful relation. By an 
argument precisely similar, as I have repeatedly stated, I can 
prove the conjugal relation in itself sinful. Many husbands 
treat their wives cruelly ; therefore it is a sin to enter into 
the marriage relation. But he charges me with placing the 
relation between master and slave upon an equality with that 
of husband and w^ife. I do no such thing ; but I maintain, 
that he has no right to urge against the relation of master 
and slave, an argument which, if sound, will sweep away 
every other relation. His argument proves too much, and, 
therefore, proves nothing. He cannot consistently urge it, 
unless he is prepared to go the whole length with Robert 
D lie Owen, and sweep away entirely the marriage relation. 
In every other relation men distinguish between the relation 
itself and the particular laws by w^hich it may be regulated, 
and the conduct of wicked men in the relation. Why does 
the gentleman so constantly insist upon an entire depar- 
ture from an admitted principle, when he comes to reason 
concerning the relation between master and slave ? 

In Hindostan the wife is in law and in fact more degrad- 
ed, than any slave on a southern plantation. Whilst com- 
pelled to yield to her lord implicit obedience, she is not per- 
mitted to enjoy the poor consolations of the Hindoo religion. 
She is believed to have no soul ; is degraded to the condition 
of a brute ; and when her husband dies, she is burned upon 
his funeral pile. No slave is so degraded in the eyes of his 
master, unless he be an atheist. Shall we, then, argue, that, 
since in Hindostan the wife is the degraded slave of the 
husband ; therefore, the relation is sinful ? Nay, not only in 
Hindostan, but over a large portion of the globe, the wife is 
thus degraded. Still the conclusion does not follow, that the 
relation is sinful, because regulated by unjust and cruel laws. 

This argument bears with equal force upon the parental 



ON sla\t:ry. 137 

relation. Hindoo mothers expose their infants on the banks 
of the Ganges. Infanticide has been common in the islands 
of the South seas. The ancient Roman laws gave the father 
power over the life of his children. Shall we conclude, 
that, because the laws by which in different countries this 
relation has been regulated, are unjust and cruel, and because 
unfeeling parents have treated their children cruelly, there- 
fore the parental relation is sinful ? Were I to reason thus, 
my logic would be quite as conclusive as that urged by Mr. 
Blanchard. His logic is indeed very sweeping. It stops 
not with destroying the relation of master and slave, but car- 
ries before it all the relations of life. It strikes at the foun- 
dations of civil government. For it is a fact, that the dark- 
est pages of this world's history, are those wdiich record the 
oppression, the tyranny, and the cruelty w^hich have been 
practiced in the name and under the sanction of civil law. 
Nero practised all his cruelties by virtue of his office as a 
civil ruler ; and all the forms of tyranny on earth, are but 
organized governments. Shall we say, what an abominable 
thing is civil government ! how detestable the relation be- 
tween ruler and subject ! What crimes against God are 
committed under its sanction ! How fearfully the innocent 
are made to suffer under its strong arm ! Dowti wnth all 
civil government ! The relation between ruler and subject 
is a sinful relation ; therefore, Avash your hands of it at once ! 
To such results does this gentleman's principles of reasoning 
infallibly tend. His brethren, the abolitionists of the East, 
at least many of them, have carried out these principles, and 
do in fact denounce all civil government as in itself sinful, 
and every individual engaged in its administration, as a 
heinous sinner, because men have been oppressed and de- 
prived of their rights by its operation! The gentleman's 
logic proves far more than he would be willing to admit. It 
begins with destroying the relation of master and slave, and 
ends with sweeping away the relations of husband and wife, 
parent and child, ruler and subject ! All are swept away by 



138 DISCUSSION 

one fell swoop. What glorious liberty men will enjoy, 
when these principles shall have been carried out ! 

Such arguments, every intelligent hearer must at once 
perceive, prove nothing; are absolutely worthless. The 
question before us is not whether bad laws may be enacted 
to regulate a certain relation ; or whether in that relation 
wicked men may be guilty of cruelty ; but whether the rela- 
tion itself obliges those who sustain it to act in this way. 
If Mr. B. can prove, that every master, or any master, is 
obliged to treat his slaves cruelly, I will forthwith yield the 
question. If he cannot, then circumstances must deter- 
mine whether, in any given case, the master is guilty of sin. 

The gentleman told you truly, that when a man is con- 
tending for the truth, his arguments will be consistent one 
with another. I am happy to be able, now, to apply his 
principle to himself, that you may see the very awkward 
predicament in which he has placed himself He has occu- 
pied his time, partly in relating isolated cases of cruelty, 
practiced by wicked masters, several of which have been 
proved untrue, and none of which have any applicability to 
the question under discussion; and partly in telling you 
what slave-holding is. How has he defined or described 
slave-holding? By enumerating the worst laws of ancient 
Greece and Rome, and of some of the southern States, and 
asserting that these laws are the thing itself He insists that 
those laws are essential to the existence of slavery — that the 
relation cannot exist without them. Let him only j)rove this, 
and I give up the question. If the relation of master and 
slave cannot exist without cruel laws and inhuman treatment, 
away with it. Let us, then, inquire whether these things are 
essential to the existence of the relation. 

But, first, mark how differently the gentleman reasons 
concerninof this relation and others. He insists that all the 
bad laws which are made to regulate the relation of master and 
slave, are essential to its existence ; but when I refer to the 
cruel laws by which other relations have been regulated, he 
at once distinguishes between the bad laws and the relation. 



ON SLAA'^RT. 139 

When I ask, in view of the degrading laws, by which, over 
so large a portion of the earth, the marriage relation has 
been regulated, whether it is in itself sinful, he finds no 
difficulty in admitting that the laws are wrong, and the rela- 
tion right. Although he makes the recognition .of marriage, 
by the civil law, essential to its validity, yet he does not 
condemn the relation because the laws are bad. 

And when he is pointed to the bad laws by which the 
relation of parent and child has often been regulated, does 
he contend that those laws are essential to the relation? By 
no means. The civil law recognizes the relation and regu- 
lates it ; and he finds no difficulty in discriminating between 
the relation, as recognized by law, and the particular laws 
for for its regulation. 

But the gentleman may. tell you, that these relations are 
right, because instituted by God ; whereas the relation of 
master and slave is wholly the creature of law, and conse- 
quently all the cruel laws are part and parcel of the thing 
itself I reply, that organized civil government — the rela- 
tion between ruler and subject — is not properly a 7iatural 
relation, but is established by men. Will it be pretended, 
that all the oppressive laws, and all the tyranny connected 
with civil government, are essential to the relation between 
ruler and ruled? Civil government, we know, is, in a sense, 
of divine appointment ; and the relations belonging to it are 
right. Mr. B. finds no difficulty in distinguishing between 
the relation of governor and governed, and the ten thousand 
bad laws by which men have sought to regulate this relation. 
The truth is, that in regard to all relations, whether natural 
or constituted by the organization of human society, there is 
a broad distinction to be made between each relation, and 
the lav/s enacted for its regulation. Why, then, I ask, must 
the relation of master and slave be confounded and identified 
with all the particular laws enacted for its regulation ? Are 
we, for the special accomodation of abolitionism, to reason 
about this relation as we do about no other ? Does it require 
special advantages in order to sustain its claims? 



1 40 DISCUSSION 

Let it be kept in mind, that if anything which is essential 
to the relation of master and slave, be taken from it, the 
relation itself ceases to exist. Now it is a fact, that accord- 
ing to the slave laws of Rome the master had unlimited 
power over the life of the slave. This, Mr. B. says, was 
rather a custoin than a law. I will read the law on this 
point, as quoted by the Biblical Repository, from the Jus- 
tinian Code. This is a New-England publication ; it comes 
from a region where, it is said, the spirit of freedom prevails. 
I read in vol. 6. p. 419. " All slaves are in the power of their 
masters, which power is derived from the law of nations ; for 
it is equally observable among all nations, that masters have 
had the power of life and death over their slaves ; and that 
whatsoever is acquired by the slave, is acquired for the mas- 
ter." Now Mr. B. contends, that all the slave laws are 
essential to the existence of slavery. Then if the power 
over the life of the slave be taken from the master, the rela- 
tion must cease to exist ; because one of its essential features 
has been destroyed. If, then, his principles are correct, 
Kentucky is actually a free State ; for there the master has 
not power over the life of his slaves; and, therefore, an essen- 
tial feature of the relation being wanting, the relation itself 
does not exist ! This argument applies with equal force to 
most, if not all, the other slave-holding States ; for in no one 
of them, I believe, has the master any such power. Con- 
sequently, we reach the conclusion, that they are all free 
States ! 

Again. The law forbidding slaves to be taught to read, 
we have been told, is essential to the existence of slavery. 
But in Kentucky there is no such law ; therefore Kentucky 
is a free State ! And it is a fact, that, years before New- 
York abolished slavery, a law was passed for having the 
slaves instructed. Though, according to Mr. B.'s logic, 
slavery was abolished when that law was passed ! yet it is 
a fact, that the relation between master and slave existed 
there for a number of years after the law was passed. I 
might give other examples, were it necessary. 



ON SLAVERY. 141 

But the gentleman's argument also proves the Presby- 
terian Church to be an abolitionist church ; for her law for- 
bids all cruelty toward slaves, the separation of husbands 
and wives, <fcc., and calls upon masters to give them religious 
instruction. Yet Mr. B. and some of his friends have de- 
nounced our church as, " par excellence^ the slave church of 
America ! " The law is as follows : 

" We enjoin it on all church sessions and presbjrteries, 
imder the care of this Assembly, to discountenance, and, as 
far as possible, to prevent all cruelty, of whatever kind, in 
the treatment of slaves ; especially the cruelty of separating 
husband and wife, parents and children ; and that which 
consists in selling slaves to those who will either themselves 
deprive these unhappy people of the blessings of the gos- 
pel, or who will transport them to places where the gospel 
is not proclaimed, or where it is forbidden to the slaves to 
attend upon its institutions. The manifest violation or dis- 
regard of the injunction here given, in its true spirit and 
intention, ought to be considered as just ground for the dis- 
cipline and censures of the church. And if it shall ever 
happen that a Christian professor, in our communion, shall 
sell a slave who is also in communion and good standing 
with our church, contrary to his or her will or inclination, 
it ought immediately to claim the particular attention of the 
proper church judicature ; and unless there be such peculiar 
circumstances attending the case as caii but seldom happen, 
it ought to be followed, without delay, by a suspension of 
the offender from all the privileges of the church, till he 
repent, and make all the reparation in his power to the 
injured party." 

Such is the law of our church, proclaimed in 1818, and 
never repealed, but reaffirmed substantially by the last 
General Assembly. The gentleman has proved, at least to 
his own satisfaction, that the right to separate husband and 
wife is essential to the existence of slavery. Since, there- 
fore, our church does not permit her members to do this 
thing, she ought to be regarded most decidedly as an aboli- 



142 DISCUSSION 

tionist church. Now one of two things is true, viz : all the 
the cruel laws and all the cruelties practiced under those 
laws upon the slaves, by wicked men, are essential to the 
relation of master and slave ; or they are not. If they are 
not, the relation may exist without them, and all the gentle- 
man's declamation concerning them, does not prove it in 
itself sinful. If they are essential to it, as abolitionists af- 
firm, then our church has no connection with slavery ; be- 
cause she lias condemned a number of its essential ingredients. 
So that either Mr. B. has spent his time in discoursing of 
matters which do not bear on the subject in hand, and do not 
prove slave-holding in itself sinful ; or he has proved the Pres- 
byterian church to have no connection whatever with slave- 
holding. If the abuses of which we have spoken, are es- 
sential to the existence of slave-holding, Presbyterians cannot 
hold slaves. If they are not, his argument falls to the ground, 
as perfectly worthless ; for his whole argument has been 
based upon the assumption that they are essential to it. 

Yet, with singular inconsistency, the gentleman de- 
nounces the Presbyterian church as 'pro-slavery ; although 
she refuses to tolerate in her members a number of things 
which he considers essential to the existence of slavery ! 
The relation still exists, when divested of all those abuses. 
What, then, is slave-holding 1 It is the claim of a master to 
the services of the slave, with the corresponding obligation to 
treat him kindly, as a rational, accountable, immortal being. 
Where has he offered even one argument to prove, that this 
claim is, under all circumstances, sinful 1 His whole argument 
has depended upon the circumstances which may, or may not 
attend the existence of the relation. It is therefore, wide as 
tlie poles from the question under discussion. He has not 
yet touched that question. 



ON SLAVERY. 143 

Th-orsday; 4 o'CiCck, P. M. 

[mR. BLANC hard's SIXTH SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen Moderators^ and Gentlemen and Ladies^ Fellow 

Citizens : 

If I should say nothing in reply to the constant affirma- 
tions of my brother that I do not speak to the question, I 
might seem to treat him with disrespect. It is not my wish 
to do so. You will recollect that the subject of cruelty was 
introduced three times by himself in accusations against ab- 
olitionists, saying that we have slandered slave-holders by at- 
tributing to slavery cruelties which no not in fact exist. I 
replied, showing there are three circumstances, which are 
part and parcel of slavery ; which three things make the 
slave liable to more and greater cruelties than brutes are ; — 
that slavery is therefore essentially cruel and therefore sin- 
ful, if cruelty is a sin. My friend seems now angry that I 
spoke about cruelty at all, asking " what is that to the ques- 
tion ?" So that I can take no course but he finds some fault 
with me. It seems that whether I drink at the brook above 
or below him, i still roil the water for him. Now I certain- 
ly wish to do all that fairness requires of me. Such has 
been my endeavor from the first ; and I am constrained to 
fear my friend has some special motive for finding fault. 

But his last complaint, with his remark in connection, 
were somewhat ludicrous. He told you that I had not yet 
spoken to, and would not debate the question at all. Speci- 
fying certain topics which he put in my mouth, he declared 
with solemn emphasis that he would not discuss such irrel- 
evant matters but keep himself rigidly to the question. 
Then in less than five minutes he said, " Now I will follow 
the gentleman through his remarks." [a laugh.] 

The proposition I lay down, and which I was attempting 
to prove, is that the slave is without protection in Kentucky ; 
and that the statement of my friend, that in Kentucky slaves 
have the same protection as children, is certainly without au- 
thority. Was not that debating the question ? Most cer- 



144 DISCUSSION 

tainly : for surely, to deprive unofTending human beings 
of protection is sin ; and to Jiold them in such a situation that 
they must be deprived of protection is sin also ; because it is 
a continuation of the sinful act — the first deprivation. Sure- 
ly, this is upon the question. Is slave-holding a sin. I am 
proving that slave-holding is a sin upon the same principle, 
and for the same reason that it would be a sin to hold your 
head in an exhausted receiver, where you should be bereft 
of air, which God made free for all ; and because He made 
the air free to all, holding you where you are deprived of it 
is murder: so holding men in deprivation of protection by 
civil government, is robbing them of the benefit of God's or- 
dinance establishing human society, an ordinance given by 
God to shelter all. The argument is not what I call direct ; 
but it is cogent and conclusive. You all see plainly enough 
the bearing of my remarks upon the question. It is not 
needful for me to hold a guide-board every moment to your 
heads, crying, " This is to this point, and that goes to that." 
I may safely, I think, leave something to your judgment, and 
compliment you so far as to presume you capable of perceiv- 
ing the bearing of an argument upon the question without 
uttering a nota bene at the end of every paragraph. 

I resume my argument. I said I would institute a com- 
parison, between the protection enjoyed in Kentucky by the 
most friendless orphan child, and that of a Kentucky slave. 
If I show that the latter has literally 710 protection by the 
civil law, then, I show you that slavery holds man in a con- 
dition bereft of what God intended for him, which is sinful, 
and establish the afiirmative of the question, by proving 
slave-holding to be sin. 

Take now a Kentucky orphan child, as bereft as bereav- 
ment itself can make him — without guardian, mother, father, 
uncle, or cousin. 

I have here, copied out in full, the laws of Kentucky ap- 
plicable to such persons. 

If the orphan be a boy, he is bound out by the proper 
officer, as a servant. There is, in Kentucky, a threefold dis- 



ON SLAVERY. 145 

tinction of persons rendering service — apprentice, servant, 
and slave. The "law of master and servant" regulates 
the lowest form of free labor; one grade below that of 
apprentice. For the master is not bound to teach the baund 
servant a trade, as he is bound to teach an apprentice. The 
servitude of a bound servant is, therefore, the lowest form 
of free labor known to the law. Now what is the protec- 
tion secured to the bound servant? 1st. He cannot be bound 
for more than seven years. As he is supposed to be youno- 
when indented, this ordinarily makes him his own master 
at about twenty-one years of age. But slavery is perpetual 
in the person and posterity of the slave. Again, the master 
of the indented servant is bound to provide him with "whole- 
some and sufficient food, and clothing," as compared with that 
of the family (not with his peck of corn per week,) and, at 
the end of the indentures, to give him a " new coat, waist- 
coat, pantaloons, (or ' breeches,' as the law has it.) shoes, 
two pairs of stockings, two shirts, hat, and blanket." 

Stat Ky. 1798. 
This is the protection which the law gives to the servant 
m his earnings. Again; the statute provides a punishment 
for "injurious demeanor" to the servant: and we find what 
" injurious demeanor," in a master towards a servant, is, by 
the adjudged cases. Thus in McGrath vs. Hernden, 4 
Mun. Rep. 380 : McGrath, the master, sued Hernden, the 
father of the bound boy who had runaway, for the service 
of his son. The father put in a plea that McGrath, " by 
whipping and cow-hiding, had driven the boy away." The 
Court allowed the plea and declared the boy free. The 
operation of such a principle as this would have freed before 
this time, two-thirds of all the slaves in the United States. 
If that runaway boy had been a slave, the laws would have 
rewarded the man who should take him up and deliver him 
to his master. The utmost which they would do to relieve 
him would be, to allow a neighbor to take up his case, if 
his master's cruelty went much beyond the slave-holding 

standard in the neighborhood, sell him to a second master, 
10 



146 DISCUSSION 

and pay his whole price to the first. By this change, the 
slave may be worse off than before ; for he is taken from a 
master with whose passions he is acquainted and sold to one 
of whose temper he is wholly ignorant. 

The motive of this law, which my brother boasts of as a 
specimen of Kentucky clemency, does not seem to be to pro- 
tect the slave ; for if the end was justice to the slave, why 
not give him his liberty, which is equally his own with his 
life. It seems to have been made, like the law forbidding 
cruelty to animals, to protect the sensibilities of the com- 
munity, rather than from any sense of justice to the creature 
suffering. The inhuman master is not punished by the sale 
of an obnoxious slave. It may be a relief to him to be rid 
of the slave he hates. Yet this is the sum of ail the legal 
protection afforded to the slave in Kentucky; while the 
bound servant goes free if the master but cow-hide him. 
And what is most important of all, (and I beg your special 
attention to it,) by a statute of 1797, "the courts of every 
county shall, at all times, hear the complaints of apprentices 
and hired servants, and may determine such cases in a sum- 
mary way." The Bible gave the same protection to the 
Hebrew bond-servant. All that he had to do was to walk 
to the judge sitting in the gate of the city, and he obtained 
summary justice. The court may be sitting, engaged in 
some important case, when a rap is heard at the door. The 
sheriff goes to the door and returns with the boy bleeding 
from his scourging, before the judge: who immediately ar- 
rests proceedings, hears his case, reads the statute, declares 
the boy free, and delivers him to some friend or guardian 
who Avill protect him. But if he be a slave he cannot stand 
in judgment in a Kentucky court-house ; he has no rights 
which that court-house represents. If another does not 
chance to take up his case, there is no bar where he can 
plead this side the bar of God. His own quivering lip, 
and wet eye, and frame, gashed and gory, must never speak 
before a tribunal of human justice. Another must tell his 



ON SLAVERY. 147 

tale, or it is untold : and for this plain reason, that in law he 
is not a man but a brute ! 

Yet my brother says that in Kentucky, this wretched, 
though innocent outlaw has the same protection with the child ! 

Let us now trace out the protection which slaves enjoy in 
Kentucky in its details. Suppose a master travelling in 
Kentucky, die suddenly, without heir or acquaintance, except 
one slave attending; let us follow and see what protection 
the laws afford this slave. His master, buried by the coro- 
ner while he is away ; a stranger, in a strange land, he wan- 
ders to the next plantation where he is taken up and " found 
without a pass." The law begins its protection by laying 
ten " stripes on his bare back." If he happens to have a 
"gun," " club," or "any other weapon whatever, offensive 
or defensive," the arms are forfeit to the seizer, and the mer- 
cy of the law adds lashes, not exceeding 39, on his bare back. 
Stat. 1798, sec. 5. He offers to swear that the gun was his 
master's who is dead : and the law answers ; " No negro or 
mulatto shall be a witness except in pleas of the commonwealth 
against negroes or mulattoes, or in civil cases where negroes 
or mulattoes alone shall be parties." Stat. 1798, sec. 2. 

These proceedings ended, a drunken rufHan seizes him to 
drag him to jail, and advertise for a master. The negro in- 
dignant at the assault, raises his arm and knocks his assailant 
down. He is forthwith taken to the next justice who reads 
the law as follows : 

" If any negro, or mulatto, bond or free shall, at any time, 
lift his or her hand in opposition to any person not being a 
negro or mullatto, he or she so offending, shall for every such 
offence, proved by the oath of the party before a justice of 
the peace of the county where such offence shall be com- 
mitted, shall receive thirty lashes on his or her bare back well 
laid on by order of such justice." Stat. Ky. 1798, sec. 13. 

The rufhan assailant, if not too drunk, stands up and 
swears to the lifting of the hand, and the law administers its 
protection in the shape of thirty lashes more. 

[I have purposely avoided supposing the slave to be a 



] 48 DISCUSSION 

young female, thus receiving Kentucky protection, but you 
will observe that the slave-code knows no distinction of mercy 
for sex. It is the lifting of " his or her hand,^'' at " any time," 
atrainst " any person," which constitutes the oflence. And 
the stripes are laid upon " Ais or her bare backy~] 

Sold, after imprisonment, to pay his jail-fees, to a master 
whom he hates and who hates him, the despairing creature 
refuses submission. He runs away and is killed in the pur- 
j;uit, or resists his master and dies under " moderate correc- 
tion," and the verdict is ^^Justifiable Homicide T^ 

Now I do not suppose that precisely such a concatenation 
of horrors is likely soon to happen, but I do affirm that there 
is statute for every step of the case supposed for illustra- 
tion ; and wherever there is any, the practice coincides with 
the law. 

Now let Dr. Rice go read at the grave's head of this lone- 
ly victim of slave-law protection {? !), his most extraordinary 
assertion, that, " In Kentucky the slave has the same protec- 
tion that a child has !" Would not a hollow murmur come 
back from the very grave and lips of the dead ; " Forasmuch 
as your treading is upon the poor — ye have built houses of 
hewn stone but ye shall not dwell in them. For I know 
your manifold transgressions, and your mighty sins; they 
afflict the just: they take a bribe, and they turn aside the 
poor in the gate from their right." 

I know that when I speak as I feel, and as every man 
ought to feel on this subject, my friend thinks I " appeal to 
your sympathies." Well, fellow citizens ; God appeals to 
our sympathies, aye and to our feelings for our wives and 
children too, when he says — " Thou shalt not vex a stran- 
ger nor oppress him. If thou afflict them in any wise and 
they cry at all unto one, I will kill you with the sword, 
and your wives shall be widows and your children fatherless.^^ 

My friend is anxious for the Bible — "the Bible," — "only 
jrive us the Bible for the doctrines advanced." Well, let him 
well consider the sense and bearings upon slavery, of the 



ON SLAVERY. 149 

texts against oppression just quoted: and if he wishes for 
other Scriptures they are at hand. 

" Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteous- 
ness, and his chambers by A^Tong, that useth his neighbor' s 
service without waofes, and jriveth him not for his work." — 
Jer. xxii. 13. 

" Thus saith the Lord, for three transgressions of Israel 
and for four I will not turn away the punishment thereof, 
because they sold the righteous for silver and the poor for a 
pair of shoes." — Amos ii. 6. " And they h ave given a boy 
for an harlot, and a girl for wine that they might drink." — 
Joel iii. 3. 

'• Therefore thus saith the Lord God : Ye have not heark- 
ened unto me in proclaiming liberty every one to his 
brother, and every man to his neighbor : behold I proclaim a 
liberty to you, saith the Lord, to the sword, to the pestilence, 
and to the famine, and, I will make you to be removed into 
all the kingdoms of the earth." — Jer. xxxiv. 17. " Is not this 
the fast that I have chosen, to loose the bands of wickedness, 
to undo the hea\y burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, 
and that jq break every yoke?" — Isa. Iviii. 6. 

'• Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as 
are appointed to destruction. Open thy mouth, judge right- 
eously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy." — Prnv. 
xxviii. 8, 9. And if there be another Scripture requisite to 
utter God's abhorrence of slavery, and our duty concerning it, 
it is this : " Remember them that are in bonds as bound with 
them." — Heh. xiii. 3. 

When he shall have reconciled these stern and terrible 
denunciations of every element, principle and practice of 
slavery, with slavery itself, I shall doubtless be fully ready to 
enter with him upon the critical examination for which he 
seems to pant. Lentil which time, I must be excused for 
conductinof the afhrmative of this discussion, in that way, 
which, after prayer, and much reflection, I have prescribed 
to myself as wisest and best for the audience, for the book 
we are to make, and for the cause of truth. 



150 DISCUSSION 

Hitherto, in this debate, my main object has been to get 
slavery, in full shape, fairly before us. I now come to what 
I call the direct argument^ proving that slave-holding is sin- 
ful. And the ground which I first assume is this : Slave- 
holding is sinful^ because treating it as sinful.^ has abolished 
ity and no other treatmeiit ever did. And, as error cannot 
remove seated evils, if I shall prove that the doctrine that 
" slave-holding is sin," has abolished slavery wherever it has 
been abolished, without blood, then I shall prove that the 
doctrine that slave-holding is sinful is true. In other Avords, 
as nothing but truth could produce such effects, therefore it is 
true that slave-holding is sinful. 

I know that I propose to myself a grave task — to prove 
that wherever slavery has been abolished by Christianity, it 
has been done by the force of the doctrine, express or im- 
plied, that slave-holding is sin. I know that this is the very 
doctrine of abolitionism, and that Dr. Chalmers has pro- 
nounced it a dogma of comparatively recent date. I know, 
also, that my friend, Dr. Rice, asks triumphantly, in his late 
pamphlet : " Where did their [abolitionists'] principles ever 
abolish slavery?" And he answers — "Nowhere on the 
face of the earth." — 'p. 68. 

Now, I propose to undertake what may seem the pre- 
sumptuous task of proving, not only that our principles 
have abolished slavery somewhere on earth ; but that 
nothing but the doctrine "that slave-holding is sin" has 
ever destroyed slavery anywhere, in any age, except where 
it has perished amid bloody revolutions. While, on the other 
hand, the tame assertion of Dr. Rice and his Assembly, that 
" there are evils connected with slavery," never yet converted 
a slave-holder, emancipated a slave, or did any other good. 
In short, I intend to show, by an argument which I shall only 
begin, before I sit down. That the teachings of abolitionists 
are truth as to the sinfulness of slave-holding : and that the 
doctrine of their opposers, on this point, is error. And I must 
beg my auditors to pardon me in- advance, if the arguments I 
shall now bring forward shall seem a little dry and didactic. 



ON SLAVERY. 151 

I have before me the double object of making a speech which 
shall convince, and a book that shall be read. And when 
Charles James Fox, one of the most eloquent of statesmen, 
and of men, heard a speech praised, he used to ask those 
who heard it, " Was it fit to print?" " Will it read well ?" 
And if answered in the affirmative, he would reply, " then, 
depend upon it, it was not an effective speech." I hope, 
therefore, if m-y next speech seems dull, you will charitably 
attribute it to the fact, that I have a book to make. 

Ignatius, the eminent Christian father, who died a mart}T, 
at Rome, in the year of our Lord, 107 — only seven years 
after the death of the Apostle John, whose disciple he was, 
while on his way to suffer martp'dom at Rome, wrote let- 
ters to the Christian churches ; also a letter to Poly carp, of 
Smyrna, exhorting and instructing him how to manage mat- 
ters and cany himself in his church. There is in this let- 
ter the following passage, which shows that the slaves of 
heathen masters, who joined the churches planted by Paul 
in Asia Minor, wished to have the church money applied to 
buy their freedom. This is the passage : 

"Despise not slaves of either sex; yet let them not be 
puffed up, but serve more faithfully to the glory of God, that 
they may obtain a better liberty from God. Let them not 
desire to he set at liberty at the charge of the churchy lest 
they be found slaves of lust." — Miln. Cent. II. 

This desire of the Christian slaves to ha\^e their brethren 
in the church apply the church funds to buying them of 
their heathen ihasters, shows clearly that those brethren 
were not slave-holders; nor those Apostolic churches slave- 
holding churches. So far from this, the slaves Vv^ere asking 
to have the church funds applied to buy them, which could 
not have happened in slave-holding churches : the idea of a 
church composed of slave-holders, non-slave-holders, and 
slaves, all working to pay one part of the members for ceas- 
ing to enslave another part, being absurd on the face of it. 

{Time expired. 



152 DISCUSSION 



[ :\i R . rice's sixth speech.] 

Gentlemen Moderators^ and Fellow-Citizens : 

I must really be permitted to say that my worthy friend, 
who is opposed to me in this debate, exceeds all the men I 
ever heard for the mis-statement of facts. I do not charge 
him, by any means, with doing this intentionally ; but the 
mis-statements are oftentimes so very glaring, that they are, 
to me, perfectly unaccountable. For example : By way of 
apology for introducing the subject of the cruelty sometimes 
practiced in connection with slavery, he says that I myself 
first introduced that subject in the course of the present de- 
bate, no less than three times. Now, what was the fact? 
Those who heard him, must remember that, in the very first 
sentence of his first speech, (the opening speech of this de- 
bate.) he adverted to the passing of a slave gang near this city, 
and then dilated, at considerable length, on the cruelty of 
slavery. He knows that my remarks were made in reply to 
him: and yet he now says, that I first introduced the sub- 
ject! If the gentleman is so very forgetful, how can we 
rely on his statements'? 

He charges me with inconsistency, because I had said, I 
would debate only the question before us, and immediately 
proceeded to reply to his speech. The truth is, I proceed- 
ed to prove, that he had not debated the question, and that, 
in the course of his argument, he had contradicted himself, 
and refuted his own statements. I am not discussino-, nor 
will I discuss, the sj/stem of Amcricaji slavery ; nor have I 
alluded to it, save to expose his inconsistency, and his con- 
tradictory statements. 

His argument, during the last half hour, amounts to just 
this : In Kentucky, the slave does not enjoy that degree of 
protection which ought to be extended to him ; therefore, the 
relation of master and slave is, in itself, a sinful relation! — 
Q,. E. D. Because the laws regulating slavery in Kentucky 
do not adequately protect the slave ; therefore^ all who hold 



ON SLAVERY. 153 

slaves there, or anyAvhere, are scandalous sinners ! Accord- 
ing to the gentleman, every individual slave-holder is charge- 
able with all the defects of the laws of the State in which he 
happens to live ! How would he like to be held personally 
responsible for all the defects in the laws of Ohio ? Would 
he like such a rule, if applied to himself? I fancy not. — 
And 5^et he would hold every slave-holder in Kentucky re- 
sponsible for the acts of the Kentucky Legislature. Who 
ever heard before of a man's being held responsible for all 
the laws of his State ? This I understand to be his argu- 
ment : certainly, then, it is not to the point ; it bears not on 
the subject before us. 

But the gentleman says, it is wrong to hold a slave, be- 
cause the master holds that slave in a position where the 
laws do not, in fact, protect his rights. Now, in reply, I 
say that his argument proves too much : and he knows it is 
an established rule of logic, that an argument which proves 
too much, proves nothing. Apply his argument to the case 
of a man in Hindostan. The laws of India do not extend 
to ivives that measure of protection to which they are entitled. 
The husband, in entering the marriage relation, places the 
w^oman in a position wdiere the laws do not adequately pro- 
tect her: therefore, the relation of husband and wife, in Hin- 
dostan, is, in itself, a sinful relation ; and every man who 
has a wife, is a gross and scandalous sinner ! The ancient 
Roman laws gave no protection to a child, but allowed the 
father to treat him most cruelly ; therefore, it was gross sin 
for any one living in the Roman empire to be a parent ! So, 
because the laws of France do not protect all the religious 
rights of the citizen, as we hold they ought to be protected, 
therefore it is sin to have a family in France! His aro-u- 
ment, in plain English, amounts to this : It is a sin to place 
a human being in a position where the civil law does not 
protect him in all his civil and religious rights ; therefore, 
except under a government absolutely perfect, it is a sin for 
a Christian man to have a wife or a child ! Such an argu- 
ment sweeps all before it. It would destroy all the relations 



154 DISCUSSION 

of human society. But if lie will use arguments such as 
these, I suppose I must follow him, and expose them. He 
tells us, however, that he is coming to the question in his 
next speech. Well, I have not heard him say anything 
since the commencement of the debate, which aflbrded me so 
much pleasure. [Laughter.] 

What I did say about the legal protection of slaves in 
Kentucky, was this : that the slave had, in Kentucky, the 
same protection from cruel treatment by his master, which 
the child has from the cruelty of his father. In reply, he 
docs not deny that the law provides for the protection of the 
slave from cruelty, but seems to think the law will not be ex- 
ecuted — that no one will bring the case of a suffering slave 
before the proper tribunal. A child may suffer much from 
a cruel father, before he can secure the protection of the law ; 
and so may a slave suffer from a cruel master. But, I be- 
lieve, there is no county in Kentucky, where an oppressed 
slave, cruelly and abusively treated by his master, will not 
find some one to espouse his cause, and protect him in his 
rights. 

From the speeches of the gentleman, the audience, unless 
otherwise informed, would suppose the question under de- 
bate, to be this — " are all the laws of Kentucky, in relation 
to slavery, just what they should be?" I have never said, 
they are. The Legislature might enact a law empowering 
every master to kill his slave at pleasure : and if they should, 
what then ? Would it follow, that every man is a vile sinner 
who, holding a slave, does not kill him, but, on the contrary, 
treats him with all kindness ? If the law gave the father 
power to kill his son, would that prove every man a cruel 
wretch, who is a father, but who, despising the cruel law, 
treats his child with all the affection of a father ? 

Moreover — the laws quoted by the gentleman, were passed 
in 1798 ; whereas, the law to which I have referred, was en- 
acted in 1830. The laws concerning slavery, have greatly 
improved since '98. 

Having thus answered this one argument, I am about 



ON SLAVERY. 155 

i 

through with the gentleman's speech. To answer nothing, 
is one of the most difficult tasks I ever undertook ; and in 
what the gentleman has been saying, there is, really, noth- 
ing: to answer. 

I must, however, notice a statement he made in relation to 
the Rev. J. C. Stiles, of Richmond, Va. He referred to a 
report or statement he had somewhere heard or seen, that 
Mr. Stiles had, on his way to the General Assembly, (New 
School,) sold eight slaves, and so disposed of them as to sep- 
arate those bound to each other in the family relation : and 
that such w^as the state of moral feeling in that Assembly 
that he was not disgraced by this, in their estimation, but was 
actually appointed to administer the Lord's supper to that 
body. 

Now", there is a gentleman here present, who is an Elder 
in IVIr. Stiles' former church, who has acted as one of the 
attorneys of Mr. Stiles, in the settlement of his pecuniary 
business, and who assures me, there is not one word of truth 
in the assertion: so far from it, Mr. Stiles gave $700 (a most 
enormous price,) for a negro man, not worth half that sum, 
because he was the husband of a colored nurse in his family, 
and he wished to prevent the separation of husband and 
wife. See the misrepresentation! Instead of separating 
family relations by selling, he paid double price in purchas- 
ing, expressly to prevent it. This was like a christian : this 
was conduct worthy of a man, a christian, a christian minis- 
ter, a friend of God and of his species. He paid his money 
freely to promote the happiness of his servants. No wonder 
that he w^as not disgraced by it. See, I pray you, how the 
gentleman's /fl-c ^5 turn out; yet he says that he is careful to 
state nothing that is not true. 

I shall try to avoid such an example : what I state here, I 
will prove, if called upon to do so. I will not gather up re- 
ports and anonymous statements out of newspapers, to wound 
the character and destroy the usefulness of ministers of Je- 
sus Christ. 

But the gentleman is at last, going to make a point: he is 



156 DISCUSSION. 

going- to prove that wherever and whenever slavery has heen 
abolished, it has been abolished by the doctrine he advocates. 
If he proves this, he will prove, I undertake to say, what no 
man ever found out till now. The wisest men before him have 
failed entirely to discover it. Dr. Chalmers, who ought to 
be pretty well informed on a question like this, being one of 
the ablest and most eminent men now in the Church of 
Scotland, says that the doctrine and practice of the abolition- 
ists is wholly new, and was totally unheard of till within a 
few years past. Now, Dr. Chalmers is grossly ignorant of 
the whole matter ; or, he has wilfully asserted what is not 
true ; or, the gentleman is wrong. I might safely leave the 
audience to decide which is most probable. Let us look at 
the first evidence he adduces in support of his assertion. He 
tells us somewhat boastfully, that he is now actually on the 
question in debate ! That, he has really got on the question 
at last! I have heard of an Irishman who, wishing to leap 
a fence, ran two hundred yards to get a start, and then sat 
down to rest before he jumped. [Much laughter.] So my 
Avorthy friend has been running for nine hours of this debate, 
and then sat down to rest before he makes an argument ! [A 
laugh.] Well, he says he has reached it at last. Be it so : bet- 
ter late than never. 

He quotes Ignatius, as his first proof that the doctrine of 
abolitionists has abolished slavery. And what does Igna- 
tius say ? He exhorts Polycarp, not '' to despise slaves of ei- 
ther sex." That is right — it is good doctrine. So I say. 
What christian would despise a pious slave? And what 
next ? " Neither let them be puffed up : but rather let them 
be more subject to the glory of God, that they may obtain 
from him a better liberation. Let them not desire to beset free 
at the public cost, that they be not slaves to their own lusts." 
Aye : but why did he not exhort Polycarp to decoy them 
from their masters, and run off? Perhaps he never thought 
of this expedient. The slaves, says Mr. Blanchard, wanted 
the church to purchase them from their masters. Now the 
abolitionists of the modern times, seem wholly indisposed to 



ON SLAA^EHY. 157 

purchase slaves, and liberate them. They have discovered 
an easier plan! They are not so liberal with their money. 
Oh no — they run them off to Canada— a process which costs 
much less. Wonder how Ignatius failed to think of such 
an easy plan ! Possibly, because Canada was farther from 
Polycarp than it is from the gentleman and his friends ! He 
says, this extract proves, that the churehcs could not contain 
slave-holders, because the converted slaves beg-o-ed them to 
buy them from their heathen masters. If they did, the 
churches did not think fit to do it. They seem to have 
thought with Paul, who said to slaves so situated, " Art thou 
called being a servant ? care not for it." 

So much for the gentleman's first proof that slave-holding 
is, in itself a sin, and that the doctrine of the abolitionists has 
set all the slaves free who ever got their freedom. If this is 
his best proof, alas for the balance ! [A laugh.] 

I have here an article on the subject of Roman slavery, in 
the Bihlical Repository^ published in New England — a re- 
gion which is famous for its love of liberty — where what 
Rev. Dr. Stowe terms " the New England spirit," certainly 
prevails. The conductors of this periodical, I presume, will 
not be suspected by the gentleman, or anybody else, of being 
what he calls " Pro-slavery men." I will in due time read 
a few extracts from it and place them by the side of his ar- 
gument, when he shall have completed it. 

And now I will take the liberty of reminding the audi- 
ence, that I have adduced three several arguments against 
the gentleman's position that the relation of master and slave 
is in itself sinful, and he has not yet found time to answer 
one of them. We have been debating for nine hours, and 
he has not only not answered these arguments, but not yet 
noticed more than one of them in any way. Let me reca- 
pitulate. 

My first argument was, that the great principles of mo- 
rality are so obvious as to commend themselves to the con- 
science of all men, except the most hardened and degraded^ 



158 DISCUSSION 

yet the immorality of the relation in question has not been 
perceived by the wisest and best of men. 

Will any man deny the first part of this position ? Do 
not the first principles of morality commend themselves to 
the understanding and conscience? Does any man hold 
murder to be right ? Will any man pretend that theft is not 
wrong ? Now this very question of the morality of the re- 
lation between master and slave has been presented to the 
minds of many of the wisest and the best of men, and yet 
but few, very few of all who have examined it, adopt the 
views of the abolitionists of our day. Now all those men 
must have been extremely stupid, or modern abolitionism is 
without foundation. Have abolitionists alone eyes to see 
and hearts to feel what is right and wrong? How does the 
gentleman account for the fact ? He says that slavery is the 
greatest abomination of heathenism. How then comes it 
that the wisest and the best men never saw it to be, in itself, 
a sin at all ? He has not attempted an answer. 

My second argument was this : There never has been 
found a class of men rotten on one fundamental point of doc- 
trine, or of the moral law, and sound on all other points. 

The gentleman did make a feeble effort to reply to this : 
and how ? Why he told us, that the Pharisees among the 
Jews, in our Saviour's day, were heretical on only one sin- 
gle point ; and what think you was that 1 Why, they re- 
jected Jesus Christ as God's Messiah and the only Saviour 
of sinners 1 That was all. Only on this one point v^rere 
they unsound ! Just as if this " one point" did not substan- 
tially include the whole Christian faith? Sound on all 
points but one? And yet Christ says, they made void the 
law of God by their traditions ; that they were whited sepul- 
chres ; that they neither entered into heaven themselves, nor 
would let others enter ! Again, then, I call upon him to point 
me to any set of men since the world began, who were wholly 
unsound on any one great fundamental point of faith or of 
morals, and sound on all others. It is an admitted fact, that 
the churches in the slave-holding States are as sound in the 



ON SLAVERY. 159 

faith, as pure in morals, as expansive in benevolence, and in 
all other matters as exemplary Christians as the best aboli- 
tionist that ever breathed. Let the gentleman answer this 
argument. I venture to say, it never will be answered. 

My third argument was this : and I now press it, once 
more, on the gentleman's attention. It is a fact, admitted by 
Dr. Stowe, a leading abolitionist, and not denied by Mr. 
Blanchard himself, that there are true Christians and Chris- 
tian churches in the slave-holding States ; that they have 
been blessed with the same tokens of the divine favor, and 
have enjoyed the same glorious revivals of religion with 
those on this side the Ohio river. And it is a fact, that some 
of the most eminent, devoted, and successful ministers in the 
free States were converted, if they were converted at all, in 
the revivals with which those churches were blessed. The 
prayers of these slave-holders have been heard and abun- 
dantly answered in blessings on themselves and others. 
Now, then, according to the gentleman, God has heard and 
gloriously answered the prayers of cruel tyrants, robbers, 
man-stealers and murderers, men guilty of worse than high- 
way robbery, and still living in all these abominations ! 
Does God hear the prayers and bless the labors of robbers, 
and of man-stealers, who, whilst they pray, continue in their 
sins ? Does he listen to their prayers, grant abundantly 
their largest requests, Avater their souls with the refreshing 
dews of his heavenly grace ? The man whose eyes Jesus 
opened, reasoned very differently. He made the following 
declaration, which the Pharisees could answer only by ex- 
communication : " Now we know that God heareth not sin- 
ners, but if any man be a worshipper of God and doeth his 
will, him he heareth." 

It is admitted, that there are glorious religious revivals in 
the churches in the slave-holding States: this cannotbe de- 
nied. How will the gentleman account for these remarka- 
ble facts ? How would he answer the declaration of the 
man whose eyes Jesus Christ healed, that God does not hear 
the prayers of wicked men ? The Pharisees could not an- 



160 DISCUSSION 

swer "him, but they could excommunicate him. What say 
our friends to the same appeal? Will they resort to the 
same reply? I hope the gentleman will answer. 

My fourth argument against the doctrine of the abolition- 
ists was this: and I shall press this, too, on my opponent's 
attention. Their doctrine leads them to a course of conduct 
the very opposite of that pursued by Christ and his apostles, 
in relation to all sin, particularly in relation to slavery. The 
apostles did not form societies and pass harsh resolutions de- 
nouncing heathenism, and all the other sins of men in their 
day. Had they thus attacked and reviled the heathen, perhaps 
even the unbelieving Jews would have been willing to join 
in the work. But the apostles do not seem to have believed 
that this was the way to convert men's souls, or to reform 
their lives. They went into the very midst of those whose 
practice they sought to reform. Paul went and stood in the 
midst of Mars' hill, and there preached that they ought not 
to think that God dwelt in temples, or was worshipped with 
men's hands, or was like to gold and silver, but that they 
should repent. They preached boldly, firmly, fearlessly, yet 
mildly and kindly. They w^re maligned, persecuted, im- 
prisoned, stoned — ^yet still they went forward from heathen 
country to heathen country, converting sinners, founding 
churches, changing and reforming the whole face of human 
society. 

Does the faith of the abolitionists lead them to a course 
like this ? Does it lead them into Kentucky, to preach bold- 
ly to slave-holders, telling them to their face that they are 
living in sin, and exhorting them to repentance and newness 
of life? But if they did this, they would be persecuted? 
Ah, there's the rub. And were not the apostles persecuted 1 
Had the abolition reformers met imprisonment and threatened 
death, as Paul did, yet loved and prayed for them, as did 
Stephen, there would have been some more probability of 
persuading them to change their course. But did you ever 
hear of men's being converted by denouncing them at a safe 
distance^ as murderers, thieves and man -stealers ? Wiio 



CN SLAVERY. )6l 

was ever persuaded to virtue hj being called a villain and a 
cut-tliroat, by a man lie never saw ? Alas i if they hope, by 
staying- at home, and hurling abroad papers and tracts, and 
pamphlets, and harangue, painting slave-holders in the black- 
est tints of hell, to persuade them to set free their slaves. — 
they hope in vain. Never, in this way, will they effect 
their conversion. Did they hold the faith of the apostles 
in this matter, would not their practice be the practice of the 
apostles'? " Shew me thy faith without thy works," said James, 
the apostle, " and I will show thee my faith It/ my works.^' Did 
they ever hear of Paul's saying to Silas, in a distant prov- 
ince, do you preach faithfully out there, while I stay at home : 
be instant in season and out of season, quit you like ?nen, 
reprove, exhort, rebuke with all faithfulness, — whilst at the 
same time he kept out of danger? But our zealous aboli- 
tion brethren exhort ministers in slave-holding States, to 
preach abolitionism, which they regard as pure Christianity, 
and fear not the opposition of slave-holders, while they them- 
selves dare not set a foot upon the soil — no, not a man of 
them ! They bind on others heavy burdens and hard to be 
borne, but they themselves will not touch them with one of 
their fingers. [Time expired. 



Thursday Evening, 7 o'clock. 
[MR. blanchard's s e ven th ^spe e c h . ] 

Gentlemen Moderators^ and Gentlemen and Ladies, Felloiv- 

Citizens : 

Those who were here when the debate closed last night, 
will recollect that Mr. Rice restated three arguments, which 
he said, he had adduced to prove that slave-holding is not 
sinful. The first, to which J. will reply briefly, is this : — 
'' Slavery is not necessarily sinful, because revivals of reli- 
gion occur in slave States and slave-holding churches : and 
abolitionists admit that there are genuine conversions in 
tbem." 
J The inference is, '-'tiiat God would not thus bless sinners ] 



j62 DiscrssioN 

therefore, slare-liolding is not sin/' I think this is a fair 
statement of my friend's argument; and my ans\A-er is this: 
1st. That there are thousands of poor people in the slave 
States v.'ho do not own slaves. There are only 31,000 slave- 
owners in Kentucky, and only some 250,000 in the United 
States. The vast majority of the Southern people are non- 
slave-holders. Hence, there may be revivals, and genuine 
conversions, "in their churches ; and there may, also, he spu- 
rious conversions ; and the slave-holders may be the spuri- 
ous ones. Because, if they do not come to God, '-loving 
their neighbor as themselves,*' (and the spirit of slave-hold- 
ing is the very opposite of equal love to our neighbor.) they 
come in disregard of this law:. And, " he that turneth awav 
his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be 
abomination." — Prov. xxviii. 9. Slave-holders' hopes may be 
false hopes. 

Secondly: We may account for revivals in slave-holding 
churches, upon the principle that the wicked man, like 
Manasseh, son of Hezekiah, is often blessed in consequence 
of the prayers of the holy dead. We read, in the Scrip- 
tures, that God blessed the nation of the Jews after King 
David's death, ^'because of David, his servant;" and, for 
auofht I know , it may be. that these churches are trading 
upon the unexpired consciences of their forefathers — the 
holy dead. There once was a "David" in Kentucky, 
whom the Lord loved as the patron of his poor. Dr. David 
Rice was an enlightened and holy man. He denounced 
slave-holding", and taus^ht all the doctrines of abolitionism, 
and, honestly stri^'ing to apply them, he resisted in limine 
the entrance of slavery into the Constitution of his State. 
It is true, his practice afterwards, in tolerating slaver}^, was 
not consistent with his teaching, but he was a good mam 
May it not be, that the prayers of that '• David" are answer- 
ed to this day in the conversion of souls in Ken tuck)' 1 

On either of the above named grounds, revivals in slave-' 
holding churches may be accounted for consistently with- 
the idea that slave-holding is sin. 



I 



ON SLAVEPvY. 163 

Butj in the third place, I by no means deny that slave- 
holders may be Christians. I do not lay down the doctrine 
that every man whom circumstances may have thrown into 
a WTong relation and practice, is, necessarily, not a Chris- 
tian. I do not say that Abraham was not a child of God, 
while in concubinage with his serving woman. My brother 
admits that concubinage is bad, both as a relation and prac- 
tice ; but does that admission, if true, prove that Abraham 
was not "the friend of God?" Certainly not. It sim- 
ply proves that, in dark ages, and pressing circumstances, 
good men may get into a monstrous bad thing, just because 
they know no better. God will judge such men according 
to their light, and not I. But I hold that the slavery relation 
is sinful, and the practice sin: not that all slave-holders are 
ipso facto, sinning with every breath they draw. The prac- 
■ tice ©f my doctrine is not to denounce slave-holders, and 
give them over, but to require them to depart and come out 
from their sin. This is what abolitionists teach. That they 
should be warned affectionately ; that they should be met at 
the very threshold of the church, as they are already met in 
many churches. South and North, and told, that when they 
enter the church, they must " put away the evil of their do- 
ings i'^ and that slave-holding is one of them. 

I beg you will remember that we distinguish between the 
sinfulness of the relation of slavery, and the personal wick- 
edness of those who are in this relation. Abraham was a 
good man, yet he was in a bad relation and practice, and 
one totally inconsistent with the original constitutions of 
God, as afterwards explained by Christ. Jacob was a good 
man, yet he was found in the same miserable condition. So 
may it be with slave-holders. 

God forbid that I should lay a " flattering unction '* to the 
heart of slave-holders, calculated to content them in their 
sins. But when I see the whole political press, backed by a 
venal clergy at the South, and their brethren like-minded at 
the North, engaged in belieing abolitionists, perverting their 
doctrines, and caricaturing their measures, and justifying 



164 DISCUSSION 

slave-holding out of God's word ; — when I see the Rev. Dr. 
W. S. Plummer indirectly advocating the burning of aboli- 
tionists at the stake ; " roasting them at their own fire ;" 
and the Rev. R. N. Anderson recommending the application 
of Lynch law to them ; and men and women of all classes, 
and occupations who draw their bread, by merchandizing, or 
public house-keeping, or coast-wise shipping, from the labor 
of the slaves — all joining in the cry that abolitionists are in- 
cendiaries, and slave-holders all gentlemen ; — I can well im- 
agine that good men at the South, who really desire to be rid 
of slavery, may be confounded by the hubbub, and not know 
what to do. 

That there are such good men at the South I certainly know. 
I have by me three letters from a gentleman, a Methodist 
professor, whom I lately saw in this city ; then and now a 
citizen of Mississippi, born and educated in the extreme 
South. He had brought four slaves from Mississippi, to 
emancipate them. While here, he chanced to hear a sermon 
in which the doctrine of the sinfulness of slave-holding was 
maintained, and he uttered the deepest expressions of grati- 
tude to God that he had lived to hear the truth declared against 
the sin and curse of his native State. He emancipated 
his four slaves, and is gone to prepare the way (there are 
some legal embarrassments) to free the rest. He is now in 
active correspondence with a friend in this city. 

Yes, I bless God, that while the haters of abolition, — the 
worshippers of public sentiment and of mammon, the aris- 
tocratic, timid, profligate; the mercenary, and the slavish 
minds are leagued to bolster up slavery, and malign and run 
down its opposers ; there are good men in the slave States 
who will not be deaf to their warnings, nor slow to practice 
when they once see the truth. And the holy struggle now 
going on in the consciences of many such men, shows that God 
lias heard our prayers. Alongside of this Mississippian ; I 
will now place the Rev. Mr. Smith, of Sumpter county, 
Alabama, whom I fell in with a few years ago, while tra- 
veling up^ the Ohio river. He had one slave, a, wQlpan* with 



ON SLAVERY. 165 

him. He said she was forty years old, and had had two or 
three husbands ; that they had been sold away from her, 
and he did not now know (though she was his slave) whether 
she had a husband, or whether she could read. She could 
probably spell a little — finally, he was sure she could. These 
statements he made to President Kellogg, of Knox College, 
Illinois, Rev. S. Steele, of Ohio, and myself. And when I 
told him that his slave was free — that the Supreme Bench of 
Ohio had decided that if a man brought his slave to Ohio ; 
or suffered one to come with his free consent, it was equiv- 
alent to emancipation ; and that if he took her back he would 
be taking a free woman into slavery ; he became alarmed and 
went to the forecastle and told the men that he was likely 
to get into trouble with some abolitionists about his ser- 
vant, and hoped they would aid him. He told me haugh- 
tily, that he *' did not suffer interference with his domestic 
arrangements." 

Before that, he had been so mild and soft that you would 
have thought he was born with lambs' milk in his mouth. 
So anxious was he to learn the truth. " We of the South," 
he would say, "have this difficulty, and that difficulty.'' 
" We of the South," wish to know our duty, &c. &c. (Yet 
this poor clerical creature was Ohio born, and educated in 
the North, but had sold his conscience for the lucre of the 
slave-system.) But the moment I told him the woman was 
free, and that he could not take her back into slavery with- 
out being, by the law of God and man, a kidnapper ; he was 
in a flame of anger and alarm. As soon as the boat touched 
at Parkersburg, or Wheeling, Va., I forget which, we saw 
him go ashore, with his slave woman marching after him, 
(though he had intended to go higher and land in Ohio,) to 
put her in safe keeping, in Virginia, as we supposed, while he 
attended the O. S. General Assembly at Philadelphia, to 
which he was going, as a Commissioner. 

At the right hand of every fair-minded and honest slave- 
holder, stand such men as this preacher Smith. And they 
will as surely find themselves at the left hand of Christ, at 



166 , DISCISSION 

the judgment day, as Christ's word is true, in which he has 
said, " Inasmuch as ye have not done it unto one of the least 
of these, ye have not done it unto me." He deliberately took 
this woman from freedom, to where she had been forty years 
a slave, without marriage, and, though in a minister's family, 
without learning to read the Bible. 

Before resuming my course of remark, I briefly advert to 
one matter : — 

If my friend, who is Unfortunate in his understanding of 
my arguments, objects to any statement of mine, I wish he 
would disprove it. It is not pleasant to me to hear from him, 
"It is not so," " That is false," <Slc., and that I am the "most 
remarkable man for misstating facts, whom he ever heard." 
It would gratify us more if he would give a clear reason for 
denying the facts which I state, than to hear him speaking 
thus. In the instance, which I adduced to show the spirit of 
the church ; of Dr. Stiles, selling eight slaves, just before 
he went to the General Assembly, where he was appointed 
to administer the communion ; — if I was mistaken, it was 
simply a mistake, not a falsehood or untruth. I said simply, 
as the reporters' notes will show, that 'it was published in the 
papers as a fact.' I was particularly guarded in my state- 
ment. I saw the fact in the public prints, and have never 
seen it contradicted, or heard of its being a mistake, and I 
now believe it to be true. But my friend has got some law- 
yer, whose statement, given by Dr. Rice, shows that he is 
a slave-holder's agent, in this audience, to say that the print- 
ed account is wholly false, and " he never sold the slaves," 
&c. This informer admits that Dr. Stiles had slaves in 
Kentucky ; that he is gone to Virginia ; and does not tell 
where the slaves are. Yet, my statement goes for nothing, 
"because an unseen slaveholder's agent in this house says it 
is not true ! 

I wish to say, once for all, that I do not reproach men by 
wholesale ; but wish to err on the charitable side, if I err at 
all. Yet, I confess, I scarcely know what to believe from 
the lips of slave-holders and their apologists, speaking on 



ON SLAVERY. 1G7 

the subject of slavery. They seem to me to attach a differ- 
ent meaning to the words which they use about slavery from 
what we do. For instance. An amiable and respectable 
gentleman, when lately I was in St. Louis, made the follow- 
ing statement respecting the pastor of the First Presbyterian 
church in that city/ He said that a slave-holder, at the 
point to die, requested this minister to administer on his es- 
tate, which included slaves. That the clergyman objected to 
administer on slave-property, and was told by the dying man 
that the object was to set them free. That the physician 
was requested to stop, as a witness that the pastor had not suo-- 
gested the emancipation ; [and my informant praised the 
foresight of the minister in providing a witness to prove that 
he had not urged a dying man to free his slaves !] That the 
pastor administered on the estate, and set the slaves free. 

I, of course, rejoiced in their freedom : but I am since in- 
formed by two gentlemen, on their personal knowledge, that 
those slaves were not freed at least for some years after the 
letters of administration were taken out ; that they have seen 
the negroes coming to the pastor to know what they should 
do ; that one of them who worked on a boat used to come to 
the minister with his earnings ; that, in short, this minister 
who, while laboring in this city, professed the strongest aver- 
sion to slavery, was then, and for aught I know, is renting 
out those slaves, who, I was told in St. Louis, were set free. 
I put these statements in with that respecting Dr. Stiles by 
the slave-holder's agent, and leave them with the single re- 
mark that I scarcely know what to believe concerning sla- 
very from the lips of its apologists and defenders. 

I now take up the thread of my remarks from the point 
where I laid it down in the close of my last speech. 

I address myself gravely and directly to prove that slave- 
holding and the slavery relation are sinful. I have said that 
there are two classes of human practices and relations, and 
I wish to show that slave-holding and slavery are among the 
bad. That they do not belong in the class with marriage, 
parentage, with merchandizing, farming, manufacturing and 



168 DISCUSSION 

all other good, wholesome and useful relations and ways of 
men: but that they belong to those relations which are foun- 
ded in error and enforced by sin, as concubinage, smuggling, 
piracy, and the like. 

I mean, in short, to show, what I confess seems to me suffi- 
ciently evident without proving, that slave-holding is a repeal 
and violation of the whole kingdom of God on earth, which 
the Apostle has concisely defined to be, " Righteousness, 
Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost." 

It is unrighteous as a relation, for it is not founded in nat- 
ural equity, but in force. It is unrighteous as a practice, for 
its principle is to take every thipg from the slave, even the 
possession of himself, thus excluding the possibility of giv- 
ing him a just consideration. It is therefore simple, pure, 
unmixed, unrighteousness, and wherever it exists the king- 
dom of God cannot come. For righteousness is the basis 
of that kingdom. 

Slave-holding is also the destruction of the second ele- 
ment, of the kingdom of God which is '^ peace, " for sla- 
very is a state of war. "Ours," says the Hon. Mr. Pick- 
ens of South Carolina, in his speech in Congress, "Ours is a 
frank and bold system, which sustains itself by naked, undis- 
guised force." And it needed not this avowal to prov^e it. 
For the slave code is bristling with the appliances of war ; 
and the whole South is one vast camp, and every able-bodied 
citizen a minute man, who, under the name of a patrol, is 
even now doing a sort of military duty — being liable in an 
hour to be sumtnoned to immediate and bloody action. And 
as to the third element of God's kingdom, I know, O Thou 
Most High and Holy One, that the spirit of Slavery is not 
" Joy in the Holy Ghost." 

Whoever, therefore, utters the " Lord's Prayer," that God's 
kingdom may come on earth, as it is come in heaven, if he 
prays intelligently, — prays for the immediate and total aboli- 
tion of slavery. For marriage, parentage, equal neighbor- 
hood ; every principle and element, and regulation of that 
state of society which constitutes the kingdom of God, is 



ON SLAVERY. 169 

repealed, and resisted, and shut out by slavery. It must 
therefore be destroyed, that the kingdom of God may come. 
■ I have neither inclination nor occasion to traduce (as we 
are accused of doing) our neighbors of the South. If I 
know my own heart, I harbor no enmity toward slave-hold- 
ers. Many features in their general character I admire. 
They are frank and open, and hospitable ; far less addicted 
to tergiversation and quibbling, so far as I have experience, 
than those non-slave-holders who defend their slavery from 
the Word of God. 

The revered Dr. Baxter — ("De mortuis 7iil nisi bonum,'^) 
I know that he is dead, and am pained to speak aught of 
him but his praise. Yet this reverend doctor, and president 
of Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, was the first 
Presbyterian I have heard of, to broach the doctrine, that 
slavery is not sinful in itself At the meeting of synod where 
he did it, an elder, who is a lawyer and Virginian, I think his 
name is Maxwell, started to his feet with astonishment, and 
declared he never could subscribe to such doctrine. "Why," 
said he, " we have always admitted slavery to be an evil 
and have justified its toleration only on the ground of neces- 
sity ; but to declare the thing itself consistent with the Bible, 
is both new and strange." 

Ah! replied the doctor, the rise of abolitionism has 
changed the issue on this subject. If we admit that slavery 
is wrong in itself, we cannot resist their inference that im- 
mediate emancipation is a duty. On no other ground can 
we meet the abolitionists, than that slavery is not a moral 
evil or sin in itself 

Now I have always more patience with the ruffian appeal 
to brute force, than with this ecclesiastical truckling, and 
pitiful church-legerdemain. I would far rather hear a man 
confess the plain truth at once, and say, " we love money, and 
don't like to give up our property; and therefore we hold on 
to our slaves," than to hear a man get up and say, " he con- 
demns the laws of slavery, but justifies the thing ;" that he 
is " opposed to its parts, but likes it as a whole." He is 



170 DISCUSSION 

opposed to its legs, its arms, its teeth, eyes, ears and headj 
but put them all together, and — slavery is not wrong ! 

For my own part, I prefer the Southern doctrine of force. 
It has, at least, the merit of candor and openness. God 
knows I would not traduce our Southern brethren, or set 
ourselves up as holier by nature than they. I know that 
though their depravity flows in one set of channels and ours 
in another, yet we are all depraved. Yet I feel that I could 
no more hold a slave, than I could other stolen goods. The 
slave was stolen. Either he was stolen from Africa, or his 
father was ; and whether born in Africa or America, having 
done nothing to forfeit his liberty, he was born free, and was 
stolen the instant when he was made a slave. At best, I 
have but a thief's title to hold him, whether I bought him 
of another, or stole him for myself — a thief's title to ons 
made in God's image, and, like Him, free! 

But while I speak thus, I think a clear and careful dis- 
tinction should be kept up between the sinfulness of slavery 
in itself, and the personal wickedness of slave-holders. The 
sinfulness of slavery is seen by bare inspection ; while the 
slave-holder's is shown by his acts. " But why," says my 
friend, " do you propose to turn them out of the church, if 
you admit that they may be children of God? " 

I answer : Simply and for no other reason than because 
they hold slaves. If he will faithfully perform his duty to 
the souls of his people, the minister of God is bound to tell 
them to quit their sins if they would be Christians. If he 
cannot do this he must either give up his charge or lose his 
soul. I by no means declare a man unconverted because I 
will not take him into the church. Peter was converted, 
yet if I had seen him cursing and denying Christ, he must 
have quit that practice and repented of it before I would 
have taken him into the church. " But it's no use to repel 
slave-holders," says one ; " why not take them into the 
church and reclaim them by kindness ? " Because the com- 
mand of God is directly and positively against it : '' Thou 
shalt not suffer s'vi upon thy neighbor.''^ A true spirit of 



ON SLAVERY. 171 

kindness, too, forbids it. Paul commanded the church to 
deliver a certain one to Satan, not because he was a devil 
and hopeless, but "/or the destruction of the Jiesh^ that his 
spirit might be savedJ^ 

It is perfectly consistent with brotherly kindness and cha- 
rity to tell slave-holders, at the threshold of the church, 
" You will not be justified in entering this church till you 
get out of your sins— till you shake yourselves from what 
you know is evil." This is traducing nobody — slanderino- 
nobody — either South or North. It is simply disallowing 
the entrance of sin into the house of God, not slave- hold in o- 
alone, but sin of any and every description ; and thus by 
setting Christianity against the wrong practices of men, 
allow it to act, as the salt of the earth and the light of the 
world. 

And I will here take leave to add, that all I have said in 
this debate has tended to this one point — the very question 
before us. Yet my brother has told you, I know not how 
many times, that I have uttered nothing on the question. 
My friend rises to address you — strikes the hour of the de- 
bate as regularly as a clock — crying: " So many hours of 
the debate gone, and nothing on the question yet." " Take 
notice, the gentleman has not done this ; and the gentleman 
has not done that ! ! " 

Now I confess I have but one mouth, and that, perhaps, 
not a very fluent one. But I shall use it to the very best 
purpose I can, and do some things if not others. Now, 
Gentlemen Moderators and Fellow-Citizens, let me say, 
that, while we do hold slave-holding to be a sin, we do 
not take this ground, in the words put into our mouths by 
others, viz: " that it is sin under all circumstances." That 
phrase is deceptive. It is not true, taken one way, and yet 
it is true if understood another. I will illustrate. 

James G. Birney went to Louisville, Kentucky, to receive 
his portion of an estate. He took his share of the slaves, 
and set them free : then went to the other heirs and told 
them that he would receive his whole portion of the estate 



172 DISCUSSION. 

in slaves, which he did ; giving them all the money. He tool? 
his entire share in slaves, and set them all free. Now after 
he came in possession of these slaves, and before he had 
made out their free papers, he was not a slave-holder, but a 
redeemer, in the very act of redeeming men from slavery. 
It is a gross perversion of speech to call that slave-holding. 
Yet some delight to seek out such temporary transition in- 
stances, and use them to prove tliat " slave-holding is not a 
sin in all circumstances." It is sin wherever it is slave-hold- 
ing. But suppose 50 rods of Kentucky soil intervene, and 
he must lead them over the line to free them. Is he a slave- 
holder while they walk that 50 rods ? Surely not. The state 
is in transitu; and no man can call it slave-holding, unless he 
is quibbling, without feeling that he gives it a name which 
does not belong to it. The act is redemption, and the man, 
a redeemer of his species from bondage. 

Yet it is from instances in the nature of this, they draw all 
their examples to prove that " slave-holding is not a sin under 
all circumstances." If you will keep this in mind, you will 
have no difficulty in understanding what we mean by the 
proposition, " Slave-holding is sin :" not the relation when 
in the article of death — but living, actual slave-holding ; such 
as exists in ours and all other slave States. 

And, respected fellow-citizens, I feel as if I could cheer- 
fully lay down my life at the close of this hour, could I, on 
that condition, have the intellect and utterance of an angel, to 
transfer to the mind of this large assembly, the truth which 
presses and burns upon my own — the one great truth that 
God is to rule and shape the practical affairs and relations of 
men ; and that, consequently, where there is no every-day 
justice among men, there can be no religion. God wishes 
to control the great mass of daily and hourly doings of men. 
The question whether slave-holding is sin, therefore, does 
not turn on the hinges of extreme and supposititious cases of 
slavery — it is not to be decided by the one case to ninety- 
nine, but by the ninety-nine cases to one. It is a practical 



ON SLAVERY. 173 

question. What we wish to know, is, whether the mass of 
slave-holders sin in holding slaves. 

I have already said that the man who has set his face stead- 
fastly to free his slaves, though still in the legal relation of a 
slave-holder, is not a slave-holder in the eye of law, or of 
reason : for the common law always allows a " reasonable 
time " for transacting business, and the relation expires from 
the time the first step in the business of emancipation is 
taken ; and the matter is in a transition state, till completed. 
The individual emancipating is simply, and from the outset, 
a redeemer. But a slave-holder, is one who holds slaves^ 
and uses them under the chattel statute. 

And that there may be no mistake as to the persons meant, 
I remind you of Smylie's testimony, that " three-fourths of 
the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, and Methodists, 
of the slave States are slave-holders for gain." Not three- 
fourths of the people^ as he stated in his reply, but of the 
PresbT/teriajis, Methodists, Baptists, and Episcopalians in 
eleven States. These are the slave-holders, whose slave- 
hold ino- is meant. 

Great events often hinge upon trivial circumstances; and 
I am persuaded that it is no vain fancy which gives me a 
premonition that this debate is to be one of those little pivot 
incidents upon which the mind of this city is turning from a 
\vrong to a right state on the subject of our national sin of 
slave-holding. I know the people of this city better than 
you have known me. I know that a temporary prejudice 
has closed the minds of some to anti-slavery truth, and they 
in turn have helped to close the minds of many. But our 
people do not wish to remain in error, and the hour of dark- 
ness is fast passing away ; and the day is near when every 
fair-minded person in Cincinnati sliall be an abolitionist in 
understanding, as he is one already in heart. And though 
my labor here is almost done, and a ^e\v weeks closes my 
sojourn here forever; though in my short stay I shall not 
see the outward manifestation of this change of opinion, yet 
I am permitted to exult in the tokens of its coming, and I 



1 74 DISCUSSION 

trust in God that the results of this debate may herald its ap- 
proach. 

Suppose we had met in Sparta, some centuries ago, and 
the question for discussion had been — " Is stealing sinful!" 
Suppose my friend were in the negative of that question, and 
I upon the affirmative. You are aware, that in Sparta stcal- 
ino- was not only allowed, but, in certain cases, held honor- 
able. You recollect the story of a youth, the son of noble 
pai-ents, who having stolen a young fox, concealed it under 
his toga, and suffered it to gnaw into his bowels rather than, 
by complaining of the pain, be detected in the theft. It was 
honorable to steal adroitly, but a disgrace to be detected. 
And this child was a true Spartan. He would rather die 
than be brought out in his theft. Sparta was a military re- 
public ; and the object of this regulation was to accustom tlieir 
young men to dexterity in foraging in war. Now, in this 
state of popular opinion respecting this crime, suppose there 
were a number of Spartans who thought that stealing was 
sinful, and, living in a particular district, they had an anti- 
stealing society of their own. I submit, whether every ar- 
gument which my friend brings against abolitionists, and the 
doctrine tliat slave-holding is sinful, would not, in Sparta, 
have applied with equal force and justice against those who 
were enforcing the law, " Thou shalt not steal?" Many of 
the people might be sound in every point but this one. 
And then, he might say to these : " Why do you not go 
down tliere, where stealing is believed in, and preach to 
them?" "Why," says I, "I believe I would rather take 
my own way. We build our church upon non-stealing 
principles, and so far as it is respected our principles will be 
felt." Still, you can see, we should be reproached by all 
those whose character or connections predisposed them to 
condemn us. Everything, in short, said against abolitionists, 
could have been said against a Spartan anti-stealing society. 
*' What ! Do you mean to say that stealing in all circum- 
stances is sinful? You will turn many of the most liberal, 
amiable, and, in other respects, pious men of Sparta out of 



ON SLAVERY. 175 

your church. How can our wars be carried on without 
foraging and plunder ? AVhat will you do with that lovely 
orphan o-irl who yesterday inherited a fortune which her fa- 
ther stole from still living heirs ? Will you upturn society 
from its foundations, just to remove one practice which has 
evils connected with it ]" 

All this, and more, might be urged, but the answer to all 
such objections in favor of stealing, or slavery, is just this : 
that theft and oppression ought to exclude men from the 

church. 

But look ho-w the very principle of their objections pro- 
claims their error, and proves our doctrine true, that slave- 
holding is sin. Their doctrine is, that slave-holding is not 
sinful in itself, and to prove it they bring up certain hard 
cases, as they suppose, where it w^ould be cruel to condemn 
the slave-holder as sinning. But while thej/ justify stealing 
or slave-holding in certain extreme and unusual casesy they 
tacitly confess, that in all ordinary cases, they are sin ! 
Else why not come square up to the point? Why slink 
and burrow in extreme or unusual cases — the nooks and 
corners of the slave-system? W^hy not meet it in the main; 
and say, "the thing is right, and I support it?" 

No : they do not even pretend that out-and-out slave-hold- 
ing can be justified. But to prove that slave-holding is 
not sinful, they commonly state cases where the own 
er (they say) has ceased to regard his slaves as property ; 
and is waiting the first fair opportunity to set them free i 
That is, they scrape up their vindication of the relation out 
of the very circumstances which show that it is perishing ! 
Thus they vindicate the relation from the charge of being 
.sinful, as one would vindicate a man near you from the 
charge of being an ill neighbor, who should tell you that he 
could not be a bad neighbor, because he is in the consump- 
tion, and must soon die ! " Slave-holding is not a sin under 
all circumstances," say they. '-Very well; bring on your 
circumstances to justify it." They state them, and lo ! eve- 
ry circumstance which they adduce, is tending /row the re- 



176 DISCUSSION 

laiion, not towards it. Nay, their justifying circumstances 
are a consumption upon the slavery relation : they vindicate 
it by its diseases ; and to prove its right to live in the church 
unmolested, they show it in circumstances where it only 
seems harmless, because struck with death. But, gentlemen, 
if ordinary cases would answer, extreme ones would not be 
adduced. Think of any honest relation, as marriage, being 
justified by extreme cases, and the very fag-endism of argu- 
ment ! Their mode of defending it is a full admission that 

SLAVE-HOLDING IS SIN. 

But I prove directly^ that slave-holding is sin, because it 
a?mihilaies marriage. 

Eminent jurists have decided this fact. Observation has 
decided it. We know it. " Slaves," says Dulany, "are in- 
capable of marriage, because incapable of the civil consid- 
erations annexed to it." And because slave-holding pre* 
vents unions which God hath permitted ; or, (if they were 
married before they were enslaved,) "puts asunder those 
whom God hath joined together," it is sin. 

Several instances have occurred in the history of Ameri- 
can slavery, illustrating the practical operation of the proper- 
ty principle upon the marriage tie. Instances, where a 
young girl has been tenderly reared to womanhood, educa- 
ted, and knew not that she was a slave until after her mar- 
riage, when the heirs of her deceased master, who was also 
her father, came and claimed her as their property. And 
such instances are constantly liable to occur, wherever there 
are fathers of slave children who will not send to the ncQTO- 
quarter, and sell their own offspring. 

Now, bring this case home. Suppose one of the Elders 
of my brother's church, spending the evening in the bosom 
of his family, has just opened the Bible, and commenced 
the sweet solemnities of the hour of Avorship, when a rap 
calls him to the door, and a stranger takes him outside, and 
tells him that himself and wife are descended from persons 
held as slaves, and that they are property — the property, if 



ON SLAVERY. 177 

you please, of the most amiable and pious man the Southern 
States ever held. 

Nothing has touched this family yet, but simple slavery — 
the property-holding power. The husband returns to wor- 
ship, but his lips refuse their office. He retires to his pil- 
low, but sleep has fled from it. He groans inwardly as he 
turns upon his bed. " Oh, God, I have no wife ! My wife 
is the property of another man!" "My children all the 
property of another!" That is precisely the truth respect- 
ing, not some few slaves, but of every slave-family on earth. 

"Husband! my dear!" at last sobs the wife, "what on 
earth did the man want? Do tell me what has happened?" 
"Oh, nothing, only w^e are all slaves!" "Slaves!" cries 
his companion; "then may God regard us in mercy! But 
who owns us?" "Oh, an excellent good man, the Rev. Dr. 

; but if he ches tonight, we know not who will own us 

tomorrow! And what is worse still, our continuance to- 
gether does not now depend on our own sacred rights, but 
upon his permission ; and that permission again depends not 
only upon his disposition, but his debts. He may be com- 
pelled to sell us, or his creditors may take us. What we 
shall do, I know not. We are hopelessly undone." 

This is the natural, necessary, and invariable operation of 
the pure slavery relation upon the family ties, when stripped 
of every law and circumstance of cruelty. And now will 
my friend, and he a minister of Jesus Christ, stand up be- 
fore this andience, and tell you that slavery does not sepa- 
rate husband and wife ; that this separation is no part of 
slavery; when he knows that the property-tenure always 
prevails over the marriage tie ; that creditors' rights are 
saved without asking or caring about such a relation ; that 
the slave who should plead it would only be an object of 
derision: when, in short, he knows there is none, and can 
be no marriage between slaves ? If he does, in the face of 
all this, still assert that the separation of families is not just- 
ly chargeable upon slavery, but upon the chance cruelty of 
12 



178 BiscrssioN 

the master, all we can do farther, is to pray for him to Al- 
mighty God. 

Gentlemen, pardon my earnestness. It is made an offence 
that I feel concerned at the destruction of an institution from 
which, as from a fountain, all the feelings of humanity 
flow — the institution of marriage. God has made one man 
to be the husband of one woman. My wife, by divine ap- 
pointment, is one flesh with myself But the slavery rela- 
tion touches us, and God's law is made to give way before 
it. We are no longer " one flesh." The slave husband 
calls his wife to go with him, and the owner of the woman 
calls her at the same time to himself: which must she obey? 
You know, and my brother knows, she must forsake her 
husband and follow her owner. It is not that they may be 
separated, if the owner is cruel enough to do it; slavery has 
already separated them, and they are w^aiting to be driven 
apart. The marriage relation, that invisible tie of nature 
and of God, has given place to another invisible relation 
armed with power — the property relation. And the mo- 
ment the husband and wife become property, they are sepa- 
rated as far from the holy state of wedlock, in which they 
lived before, as hell is separated from heaven. If, therefore, 
contravening, resisting, transgressing the law of God is 
sin, then is slave-holding sin. P^or it turns back the tide 
of holy affection in human hearts, sets Jehovah himself at 
defiance, and hurls back in his face all the merciful regula- 
tions which he has given to human society, by destroying 
the central law of them all — " What God hath joined to- 
gether^ let not man put asunderP 

My second direct argument in support of this proposition 
is: Slave-holding is sin, because it is but a continuation 
of kidiiapping : in other words, it is kidyiapping stretched 
out. 

Kidnapping is the infliction of sinful violence upon unof- 
fending men; and slave-holding is its perpetuation. The 
one is simply the other continued. Both are off one piece, 
spun from the sam.e wool, and wove in the same loom. And 



ON SLAVERY. 17^ 

if kidnapping- justly merits and receives the execrations of 
the earth, slave-holding is fast coming in for its share. 

I do not say that kidnappers are not commonly more hard- 
hearted than slave-holders. I suppose, perhaps, they are. 
Though John Newton was a missionary and a kidnapper, 
and went to Africa, carrying Bibles and shackles for its peo- 
ple at the same time. 

I read somewhile since, in his church of St. Mary, Wool- 
noth, London, the epitaph which he wrote for his friends to 
set up over his remains. On that marble slab he speaks of 
himself as " Once a servant of servants on the coast of Af 
rica.^^ He doubtless went there in blind benevolence from 
the double motive of the gospel and gain. There is no evi- 
dence at all that he was a hardened reprobate while enga- 
ged in wholesale kidnapping. The only reason why that 
business is now reprobated, is not that all who have followed 
it were cruel monsters, but because it is intrinsically wicked. 
As slav-e-holding is a mere continuity of the same thing, if 
one is of the Devil, the other is also. 

Every one knows how the kidnapper acquires his title to 
the slaves whom he fetches from Africa. He fires their vil- 
lages at night ; (or pays some petty chief whom he has made 
drunk to do it.) Lies in ambush for wretched men and wo- 
men who have never injured or owed him. Catches them. 
Takes them from manhood and reduces them to slave-hood. 
They cease to be moral agents. Their free wills are taken 
out of them, and other wills substituted in the place ; so that 
if thereafter they will serve God in worship, they must ask 
time to do so of a master, who may himself be an atheist. 

Now what has the kidnapper done ? He has set up the 
propulsion of criminal force to move moral creatures, instead 
of the free wills, which God gave them, and meant them to 
obey. 

On the kidnapper's return, another man stands at the wharf 
and buys the kidnapper's title to the slave, for three hun- 
dred dollars. Of course he buys a kidnapper's title, for tho 
kidnapper has no other to sell. He buys the privilege of 



180 DISCUSSION 

continuing" upon the person of the slave, the criminal vio- 
lence which the kidnapper begun; and if one is sin, the 
other is. 

But one says, ^Hhey inherit their slaves.''^ But how can heirs 
lawfully inherit what their parents had no right to ? " Oh, 
but my slaves did not come from Africa ; they were born 
slaves." 

" Born slaves !" Did God make them slaves in the womb, 
or from the womb ? Or did some man take them and make 
them slaves at their birth ? Your title to the parent was 
nothing :■ your title to the child, if possible less. The en- 
slaving of infant children is a horrid accumulation of guilt j 
for they can have done nothing to forfeit their rights. And 
if the enslaving of grown persons is sin, which my friend, 
even admits ; how much more the enslaving of infancy ? 
Smiling, speechless, helpless infancy, as lying upon the 
mother's breast, it first opens its unconscious orbs upon a 
world, dim with oppression and woe ! 

Thus slave-holding, whether of parent or infant, of the 
African or American born, is simply a perpetual out-stretch- 
ing of kidnapping. It is but a continuation of the sin of the 
first man who first conceived the devilish possibility of yok- 
ing men with brutes to the plough. 

I now leave this point and make another. It is this : — 
Those who oppose us^ concede that slave-holding is sin^ by con- 
ceding that slavery is an evil. It is fair to prove that slave- 
holding is sin by the concessions of its defenders ; for it is 
not supposed that they would make admissions against them- 
selves, If the truth did not compel them to it. 

Now my brother has told you that he is cordially oppo- 
sed to slavery, and wishes its abolition upon correct princi- 
ples. Would to God he had told his General Assembly so; 
or that there had been in his report to that body, the 1000th 
part of the abolitionism there is in his speeches here. Why 
did he not there insert his opposition to slavery, or even hint 
it in his remarks before that body ? Perhaps I can throw 



ON SLAVERY. 18 J 

some light on the question why he did not let his assembly- 
know how ardently he longed for the abolition of slavery. 

There was a Professor J. H. Thornwell^ in the last Old 
School Assembly, which met last May in the first Presbyte- 
rian Church of this city. This Professor Thornwellvvas a 
companion with my friend Dr. Rice, in the lead of their As- 
sembly, and is the author of a book on the '■'■Errors of Po' 
^e?-7/," which was gazetted at the doors of the Assembly du- 
ring its sittings. Being from South Carolina, he is one of 
those pious protestant divines who are bold and dexterous in 
exposing the sins of Papists in withholding the Bible from 
their poor laity, at the same time one of those southern min- 
isters whom brother Rice lauds for giving oral instruction 
without the Bible to their slaves ; who thus cannot be said 
even to 

" Atone for sins they are inclined to," 

" By damning those they have no mind to ; " 

seeing they practice the very sin for which they curse the 
Papists. 

This Professor Thorn well, I take to be ^^Rev. J. H. Thorn- 
loell^^^ the supporter of certain resolutions which I will now 
read. They were adopted at a public meeting in Lancaster- 
ville, S. C; and we are told by the Southern Christian Her- 
ald that the Rev. J. H. Thornwell and Rev. Mr, Carlisle. 
addressed the meeting in their support. 

The resolutions are these : 

1. " Resolved^ That slavery, as it exists in the South, is no 
evil, and is consistent with the principles of revealed religion ; 
and ALL opposition to it arises from a misguided and fiend- 
ish fanaticism^ which we are bound to resist in the very 
threshold." 

2. " Resolved^ That all interference with this subject, by 
fanatics, is a violation of our civil and social rights — is 
unchristian and inhuman, leading necessarily to anarchy 
and bloodshed ; and that the instigators- are murderers and 
assassins^ 

So you see that Professor Thornwell puts brother Rice's 



182 DISCUSSION 

opposition to slavery, into the same box with mine, and 
denounces us both as " murderers and assassins." Well, I 
will cheerfully bear a part of brother Rice's reproach in this 
matter. 

But you can now see that if Dr. Rice had uttered, in his 
Assembly, the anti-slavery sentiments which he has freely 
spoken here, that delightful harmony for which the unhappy 
Dr. Junkin was in an extacy of thanks, would have been 
broken up. Professor Thornwell declares slavery to be no 
evil. My brother Rice says it is an evil; and that he would 
have stood with David Rice to resist its admission into the 
Kentucky Constitution. He even says, (but I thought I per- 
ceived a slight twinge about his face when he said it,) that 
he is in favor of doing away slavery — jpret-ty tol-er-a-ble^ 
con-sid-er-a-hly^ speed-i-ly. These were not his exact words, 
but as near as I can recollect, the sense. . 

At any rate, had I spoken the same words against slavery 
that he has here, slave-holders would not have forgiven me 
for it. But they will forgive Dr. Rice, for if I must tell you 
the secret — they know he utters against slavery, only what 
he is driven to, and that he is not sincere. His opposition 
to slavery is like that of our Dr. McGuffey, Avho was quite 
an abolitionist in his lectures, at the College Hall, in this 
city; but who is gone to a professorship in a slave-holding 
University, billing and cooing and shouldering with slave- 
holders, like pigeons of the same pen. 

Yet, such men would have us believe them opposed to 
slavery, and feel hurt if we doubt their sincerity ; when, per- 
haps, they never in their lives uttered one word in public 
against slavery, except when they were opposing the dooti'ine 
of some abolitionist, that slave-holding is a sin ! 

Yet, their admission is useful ; for, conceding slavery to 
be an evil, they, in effect, grant, that slave-holding is sin. 
For " love worketh no ill [evil] to his neighbor.^^ But slavery, 
they admit, worketh evil to our neighbor: therefore it is 
Cvontrary to that "love" which " w the fulfilling of the law.^^ 
Therefore it is "a transgression of the law;" and the trans- 



ON SLAVERY. 183 

gression~of the law is sin. Therefore, " slave-hjlding is 

SINFUL." 

1 have yet one minute, but my voice is over-worked, and 
my strength exhausted. [Time expired. 



[MR. rice's seventh SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen Moderators^ and Fellow-Citizens : 

I am truly gratified that my friend, after going through a 
debate of nine hours duration, has at last actually got to the 
question. I hope now, that we shall be favored by him, 
with something like argument, in every speech — that there 
will be something to answer. I am glad to hear him at- 
tempt to answer, at least, one out of three or four points made 
by myself. 

And how does he reply to it? He admits that there are 
Christians, and Christian churches, in slave-holding -States, 
and that there are even Christian slave-holders. And he 
does not deny, that real revivals of religion are enjoyed by 
the churches in the slave-hoiding States. The question, 
then, very naturally arises, hoiv is this to be accounted for ? 
How can he explain the fact, that God hears the prayers, 
revives the souls, and blesses abundantly the labors of those 
who, if the doctrine of abolitionists is true, are thieves, man- 
stealers, and, in a word, the vilest men on the face of the 
earth? It is certainly a hard task. Hard as it certainly is, 
however, he has undertaken it. He says, in the first place, 
that in those churches there are many who are not slave- 
holders, and that revivals are granted, and the souls of men 
converted, in answer to the prayers of such. But here 
arises a great difficulty. The whole of these non-slave- 
holding Christians do hold fellow^ship with slave-holders; 
thus conniving at, and virtually upholding robbery, kidnap- 
ping, man-stealing, and all the abominations which, he says, 
form part and parcel of slavery. Now, I do not think that 
such men are one whit better than the slave-holders them- 



184 DISCUSSION 

selves. Suppose I should tell you of a large company of 
thieves, having among them some who are not, themselves, 
actual thieves, though they live among, and countenance the 
rest who are ; and suppose I should inform you, that these 
people have formed themselves into a church , — and that no 
sooner have they done so, than God hears their prayers, lifts 
on them the light of his countenance, sends down his Holy 
Spirit, and grants them to enjoy a most blessed and gracious 
revival of religion — they continuing to rob and steal as 
before. What would the gentleman think of me? Could 
he believe, that there were true Christians among them? 
And could he account for the singular fact that they have 
amongst them a revival of religion, by saying that God 
heard the prayers of those who did not themselves steal, but 
who only held fellowship with those who did steal, and con- 
nived at their sin, and encouraged them in it? Would 
such an answer satisfy himself? I think not. His first 
reply to my argument, therefore, is an utter failure. 

But then he has another way of accounting for the puz- 
zling fact I have presented to him. God, he says, blesses 
those thieves and kidnappers for the sake of" the pious dead^^ 
as he blessed many of the Jews long after David's decease, 
for the sake of the man after his own heart ! Yes : God 
blesses these soul-drivers, thieves, man-stealers, kidnappers 
and murderers, for whom no perdition, according to some of 
our abolition friends, can furnish an adequate punishment, al- 
though they persevere in all their abominations, without 
reformation, or symptom of repentance ; and this he does in 
answer to the prayers of some good man or men, now dead, 
who, when alive, prayed for them !!! I do not think he has 
helped his cause much by this answer. The Bible furnishes 
no example to sustain him ; nor does it contain one intima- 
tion that "times of refreshing " from the Lord are granted to 
wicked men and corrupt churches, for the sake of the pious 
dead. 

Ah, but holy David Rice taught, among slave-holders, all 
the doctrines of the ?^boUtionists ! So says Mr. Blanchard 



ON SLAVERY, 185 

Now, I would give something to hear the gentleman read to 
us the true abolition doctrine from the writings of that good 
man. He was opposed, I know, to the introduction of 
slavery into Kentucky, and he vv^as opposed to " the system 
of American slavery;" but I deny, and I challenge the gen- 
tleman to the proof, that David Rice ever held or taught that 
slave-holding is in itself sinful, and that every slave-holder 
is among the greatest of human sinners. I know that he 
lived and died among slave-holders, preaching to them the 
glorious gospel, that they held him in the highest veneration 
and affection, and that his name and memory are venerated 
by them to this hour. Never did he attempt to exclude men 
from the church simply because they were holders of slaves. 

But Abraham, though a good man, lived in the sin of con- 
cubinage, and yet his prayers were heard. It is true, that 
there are some things in Abraham's life, which cannot be 
justified ; and it is true that he was a pious man. But let 
it be remembered that he lived in the twilight of gospel day, 
in the dawn of religious knowledge and gospel revelation. 
And let it also be remembered, that the sin of Abraham was 
by no means a sin of such heinous character as slave-holding, 
if the doctrine of abolitionism is true. I will read from the 
pamphlet of James Duncan, a work republished under the 
sanction of the Cincinnati Abolition Society. 

" From what has been said of the real character of a slave- 
holder — how his authority over his slaves contravenes the 
authority of God's law relative to the slaves, and intercepts 
and prevents all relative duties between husbands and wives, 
parents and children, and turns the entire system of obedience 
due from the slaves, both to God and man, into a channel 
of honor and profit to himself, — it appears that slave- 
holder, considered as a term expressive of his station, office, 
and usurped authority, is a name of blasphemy ; and, like 
that of the Devil, ought not to be mentioned but with horror^ 
and when imperious necessity requires it." Again, " In the 
whole volume of Divine providence, there is no one thing 
which shows the absolute necessity of a hell, more than the 



186 DISCUSSION 

practice of involuntary, unmerited, hereditary slavery." — 
Duncan's Treatise on Slavery, pp. 118, 119. 

There you hear what degree of sin they hold slave-hold- 
ino- to he ; yet the fact that God hears the prayers of such 
men, is attempted to be accounted for by the fact that he 
heard the prayers of Abraham, " the friend of God !" They 
tell you that nothing proves the necessity of a hell so con- 
clusively as the fact that a slave-holder exists among men ; 
and yet the gentleman himself tells you, that some living in 
this sin are good men, that God hears and answers their 
prayers, and that there are genuine revivals of religion 
among them ! Why does he not come out, as Foster does, 
and say that the whole American church are no better than 
pirates and murderers ? 

But then he says that Dr. Plummer, and other ministers 
of the gospel, keep the poor slave-holders (the poor pirates 
and murderers) in the dark, and therefore it is no wonder 
that they do not repent, and no wonder that they have re- 
vivals ! Aye, but he passes by the fact, that the labors of 
these very men, these blind guides, who keep the people in 
the dark as to the sin of slave-holding, are owned and blessed 
by the God of truth, and that multitudes of sinners are con- 
verted under their teachings. Does God bless the labors of 
men who betray their trust by keeping sinners in the dark ? 
who even encourjige what the gentleman and his friends call 
robbing, kidnapping and stealing, by appeals to his word? 
Such is the reply of Mr. Blanchard to one of the arguments 
I have offered against his doctrine. I cheerfully leave the 
audience to judge of its weight. 

I have nothing to say about the case of Mr. Smith. I 
know nothing of it, and therefore I can say nothing about it, 
one way or the other. But from the gentleman's own ac- 
count of the matter, he was interfering with the business of 
others, and might have expected a stern rebuke. 

My friend says he always laughs when he hears the Hagar 
case alluded to. He laughs, I suppose, at the ignorance of 
the angel, who directed Hagar to return to her mistress. The 



ON SLAVERr. 187 

angel was not living in this day of light — this nineteenth 
century! He had not the advantage of the discoveries of 
modern abolitionism in moral science, and in the exposition 
of God's word ! The gentleman enjoys all these advan- 
tages. No wonder, then, that he should laugh at an angel 
that lived so many thousand years ago. He would not, I 
suppose, have given Hagar such advice had he lived under 
the laws of Ohio, and in the light of the nineteenth century! 
I have recently read an account of a very zealous aboli- 
tionist who attempted forcibly to take away a colored woman 
from her master, in Boston ; but the woman did not want to 
go, and she brought a suit against the quixotic gentleman for 
false imprisonment, laying the damages at the round sum of 
four thousand dollars ! Not being able to obtain bail, he was 
conducted to prison. The silly woman, it seems, was not 
wilHng to be "kidnapped " by so benevolent a friend of the 
slave. 

By way of excusing his slander on the character of Rev. 
Mr. Stiles, my opponent says, he read the account in a news- 
paper ! It must have been true, of course ! One cannot 
but remark the marvellous frequency with which accounts 
of this character, find their way into the abolition papers. 
The Psalmist gives as one of the characteristics of a good 
man, that he will not " take up a reproach against his neigh- 
bor." Yet, in making his threatened book, the gentleman 
is willing to stereotype such a report against a brother min- 
ister, although, as he acknowledges, he does not know it to be 
true ! Is this right ? Yet this is precisely the course the abo- 
litionists are continually pursuing, and by such slanders it is, 
that they exasperate the South and West. But he says, it 
is anonymous testimony of some agent of a slave-holder ! 
I informed the audience that the gentleman on whose author- 
ity I contradicted this anonymous newspaper statement, is 
an elder in Mr. Stiles' church, and intimately acquainted 
with all his business, having been engaged in the settlement 
of it. He says, that so far from selling eight slaves and sep- 
arating families, he bought a slave at an extravagant price 



188 DISCUSSION 

expressly to prevent the separation of husband and wife. I 
did not before mention his name. I will now give it to the 
gentleman : the elder in question is Mr. Alexander, of 
Woodford county, Kentucky — a man of as high standing and 
as unimpeachable moral character as any man in the State. 
Ao-ain I ask, how would the gentleman like statements so 
injurious to be made concerning himself, on no better author- 
ity than a newspaper paragraph ? Would it not be well for 
him seriously to ponder that commandment, "Thou shalt 
not bear false witness against thy neighbour?" 

But another reason brought by the gentleman to show that 
slave-holding is always sinful, is that the kingdom of God is 
righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost; and slave- 
holding is the reverse, as he says, of all these ; therefore it is 
essentially, and in itself sinful. Let him prove this. In 
proof he quotes Mr. Pickens, of South Carolina, who de- 
clared that every slave-holder in that State is a minute-man, 
ready to march at one hour's warning : and this does not look 
like peace. But is it not quite as peaceful as the doctrine 
of Mr. Duncan's pamphlet, endorsed by the Cincinnati Abo- 
lition Society, that the man deserves, and will suffer the pains 
of hell fire, who would aid in suppressing a slave insurrection, 
and prevent the slaves murdering their masters ? Yet Mr. 
Duncan was a minister of the gospel of peace, while Mr. 
Pickens is a politician, and man of the world. I submit 
the question whether abolitionism breathes the spirit of peace. 
The gentleman referred to Dr. Baxter, a man beloved and 
venerated by all who know him, and told us that on a certain 
occasion he declared, in Synod or Presbytery, that slave- 
holding was not in itself a sin; and that one of his elders 
instantly rose to his feet and said that would never do : for 
we had always admitted it to be a sin ; and the contrary doc- 
trine was entirely new. I, of course, do not know anything 
of this matter, nor am I acquainted with the elder named. But 
in the first place, it is notoriously not true, that slave-holding 
has been generally admitted to be sinful in itself; and, in the 
second place — this I do know, thatDr, Baxter was a man of 



ON SLAVERY. 189 

iucorruptible integrity, who would defend what he beheved to 
be truth, living and dying. Knowing the character of that emi- 
nent servant of God, I do not believe one word of the story 
told by the gentleman. But this is all aside from the ques- 
tion : I am not here to discuss personalities, or defend indi- 
vidual character, but to refute the arguments by which it is 
attempted to be proved, that slave-holding is in itself sinful. 

The brother tells us, there is a broad distinction between 
the sin of slave-holding, in itself considered, and the sin of 
slave-holders who are guilty of it. There may be some 
ground for this distinction ; but if slave-holding be such an 
enormity as he represents it, — the greatest abomination of pa- 
ganism — a man professing godliness in this day of religious 
light, can hardly be guilty of it without being a most flagrant 
offender. Such a man could not therefore, be recognized as 
a Christian. 

But mark the gentleman's admission : he says that he does 
not hold slave-holding to he sin under all possible circum- 
sta7ices. Is not this giving up the whole question 1 If slave- 
holding is a sin in itself, then it is sin always, under all cir- 
cumstances. Blasphemy, for example, is a sin per se, a sin 
in itself; and is it not always sin ? It is a sin to blaspheme 
for one moment as truly as for a thousand years; and no 
possible circumstances can make it anything but a sin. And 

this is true of all other acts in themselves sinful. 

I shall not say anything about being wdling to die at the 
end of my speech, as the gentleman did, (provided my voice 
will hold out to the end of it ;) and I must be pardoned for 
expressing a very strong doubt whether my good brother, if 
put to the test, would not shrink in the moment of trial. 
[A laugh.] 

The gentleman's first argument, to prove slave-holding sin- 
ful, viz : that it makes marriage impossible, has been presented 
and answered before. I utterly deny the truth of the position. 
He has given quite a moving illustration, by supposing ono 
of my elders, after spending a pleasant evening, and when, 
about to retire, to have ascertained that he and his family 



190 DISCUSSION 

are slaves: Truly this would be bad enough ; but it proves 
nothing in favor of his proposition. He severely condemns 
the attempt to argue from extreme cases, though he evidently 
has no objection to this mode of argumentation, provided 
it favors his views. This supposition of an extreme case, 
is really the only proof he has presented, that slavery 
makes marriage impossible. He has told us, that a man 
defending the truth will always be consistent with himself 
Surely, then, he should not have condemned a resort to ex- 
treme cases in argument, and then forthwith have relied 
upon just such cases. 

The law of Constantine constrained the purchaser of a 
married slave to take the whole family : it expressly forbade 
the separation of husband and wife. Did this law destroy 
the relation of master and slave ? It did not ; the relation 
continued ; yet the law prohibited the separation of married 
slaves. It is perfectly clear, then, that slavery may exist 
where the civil law forbids the separation of husband and 
wife J and, therefore, it is not true, that it necessarily des- 
troys the marriage relation. Consequently, separation, 
where it does take place, is not chargeable on the relation 
of master and slave, but on the cruelty of a particular master. 

The law of the Presbyterian Church in America forbids 
a church member to separate married slaves, and subjects 
the man who will dare to perpetrate the cruel act to excom- 
munication. Will the gentleman, then, admit that ours is 
an abolition church? He will not; he denies it; conse- 
quently, he himself admits, that the relation between master 
and slave may exist unimpaired, even where masters are not 
permitted to separate married persons. Slavery, therefore, 
does not destroy the marriage relation. The brother, you 
perceive, is attempting to prove a certain relation sinful, 
from the wickedness of men in that relation, a course which 
if valid against slavery, is equally valid against the married 
relation, the parental relation, the civil relation — in a word, 
against every relation of man's social existence. 

Mr. Blanchard's second argument is, that slave-holding is 



ON SLAVERY. 191 

only kidnapping continued, or drawn out; and therefore it 
is in itself sinful. Tlie slaves were originally kidnapped in 
Africa ; and therefore the present owners of them have only 
a kidnapper's title to them. This argument is founded upon, 
a principle nowhere recognized as true, viz.: that a man 
can have no just title to any property, unless all who pos- 
sessed it before him obtained it justly. What would be the 
consequence of carrying out this principle? Much of the 
land in these United States was obtained from the Indians by 
force or by fraud. Consequently, all the present owners of 
these lands are chargeable with holding them by unjust and 
unlawful titles, and must either give them up, or be expelled 
from the church. Will the gentleman take this ground ? 
There are not a few now in New-England, living on 
princely fortunes gained by traffic in slaves. Will Mr. B. 
go to his New-England brethren, and denounce them as 
robbers, unless they will give up their ill-gotten wealth? 
If the abolitionists will carry out this doctrine, it will, doubt- 
less, cause quite an uproar m " the land of steady habits." 
I question very much whether there are not some zealous 
abolitionists, who would not feel so pleasantly under its 
operation. They are said to hold on to the cash with a 
pretty tight grip ; and however they may condemn the rela- 
tion of master and slave, they would not be so ready to dis- 
solve the relation between themselves and their fortunes. 
[A laugh.] 

I was a little amused at the gentleman's pathetic appeal, 
in which he represented the beautiful little babe in the cra- 
dle, born free and equal with the children of the owner, yet 
stolen from the cradle and reduced to slavery. Yet, he has 
no great objection to depriving the liberated slaves of the 
right to vote — to have a voice in making the laws by which 
they are to be governed. He is willing to deprive them of 
their most valuable political rights, and leave them completely 
under the government of the white population ; but he denoun- 
ces the man who goes one step farther, for any reason what- 
ever. By what law of morality he proceeds. I know not. 



192 DISCUSSION 

But he seems to forget, that God speaks of Abraham as hav- 
incr servants " born in his house," as well as servants "bought 
with his money." Gen. xvii. Does the Bible, then, justify 
kidnapping, stealing babies from the cradle ? Why does not 
the gentleman act consistently, and denounce not only Abra- 
ham, the father of the fathful,but the Bible itself? It is im- 
possible for him to be a consistent abolitionist, without reject- 
ing and denouncing the Bible. Its tendency is to infidelity ; 
and already has it lead some of the most prominent of its 
advocates into that dark region. Garrison and his coadju- 
tors now bitterly denounce that blessed Book, and the church 
of Christ. 

But look at the absurdity of the charge, that slave-holding 
is but kidnapping continued. A slave who is likely to be 
separated from his family, comes and begs me, as a special 
favor, to purchase him. To improve his condition, I buy 
him, and because I hold him as a slave, I am denounced as 
a man-stealer ! . Why ? Have I deprived him of his liber- 
ty? ]>Jo — he was before a slave. I have not reduced him 
from a state of freedom into a state of bondage. That would 
be kidnapping. But I purchase, at his own request, a right 
to his labor, for the express purpose of placing him in a 
better and a happier condition. Yet, our charitable friends, 
wholly indisposed to give even a sixpence to redeem any hu- 
man being, brand me for this as a robber, and a " kidnapper 
of soul and body!" 

Let me again revert to the case already mentioned, of a 
Presbyterian elder in Kentucky, who became heir to a large 
number of slaves, some old and nearly helpless, others, wo- 
men and children, incapable of supporting themselves. 
When the duty of immediate emancipation was urged, he 
inquired of the brethren in Synod what they would have 
him do. Was it his duty to turn them all out to provide for 
themselves? Was it his duty to give bond and security that 
they should never become a public expense? Was he bound 
to separate husbands and wives, and remove his slaves to 
Ohio ? No man in Synod could give him advice of this 



ON SLAVERY. 193 

kind. I have presented lo the gentleman this plain case 
and called upon him to say what the elder was bound to do. 
He is silent. Why will he not answer? Because he 
cannot. I have also presented the case of a gentle- 
man in Boston, who fell heir to a plantation and slaves 
in the South ; and I have asked Mr. B. what was his duty? 
He is silent. Yet, according to his doctrine, those excellent 
men held their slaves by a "kidnapper's title," and w^re guil- 
ty of the sin of man-stealing ! They both resolved to live 
amongst their slaves, and endeavor to do their duty to them. 
Will Mr. B. " shew us a better way ?" Do you believe, they 
were guilty of the sin of kidnapping ? Common sense de- 
cides unhesitatingly, that they were not. The law of God 
denounces no man, because he cannot perform impossibili- 
ties. 

The gentleman's third argument is, that by admitting sla- 
very to be an evil. I, of necessity, admit slave-holding to be 
in itself sinful. And here let me turn aside to notice his 
ardent wish, that 1 had said to the last General Assembly, 
what I have said here, concerning the evil of slavery. The 
duty of the Committee, of which I had the honor to be the 
chairman, was simply to report on the memorials presented 
•to the Assembly. Of these petitions and memorials, ( and 
their number was much smaller than the abolitionist prints 
have represented them,) none, so far as my memory serves 
me, asked the Assembly to decide whether American slavery 
is an evil or not. Some of them desired that body to devise 
means by which the condition of the slaves might be amelio- 
rated, with a view to the ultimate removal of slavery. What 
was their reply? They said — " The apostles of Christ 
sought to ameliorate the condition of slaves, not by denounc- 
ing and ex-communicating their masters^ but by teaching both 
masters and slaves the glorious doctrines of the gospel, and 
enjoining upon each the discharge of their relative duties. 
Thus only can the church of Christ, as such, now improve 
the condition of the slaves in our country." The apostles 

devised no other plan ; and the Assembly did not claim to be 
lo 



194 discussion' 

"wiser than they. And have those who have bitterly denounc- 
ed the action of that body, shown themselves wiser? A 
convention of Congregationalists and New School Presbyte- 
rian ministers met, not long since, in Detroit ; and they 
passed resolutions condemnatory of American slavery ; but 
what plan did they devise for the removal of it ? None what- 
ever. Yet some of them dealt out unmeasured condemna- 
tion to the General Assembly, because that body could not 
do what the Convention did not attempt ! 

Another class of memorialists, the abolitionists, asked the* 
Assembly to make slave-holding a bar to christian fellow- 
ship, on the ground, that it is a heinous and scandalous sin. 
They replied, that they could not do this, because the Apos- 
tles of Christ did not so act. They received slave-holders 
into the church v^^ithout requiring them to manumit their 
slaves. For this decision, the Assembly was denounced as 
" pro-slavery.''^ 

I must hero notice a very gross misrepresentation of the 
action to the Assembly. Because that body expressed their 
satisfaction at learning that increasing efforts are being made 
in the slave-holding States, to have the gospel preached to 
the slaves, they are charged with approving the withholding 
of the word of God from the slaves, as the Pope withholds it 
from his followers ! Now the gentleman cannot help seeing 
that this charge is not true. What was the action of the As- 
sembly on this point ? They said — " Every Christian and 
philanthropist should certainly seek, by all peaceable and law- 
ful means, the repeal of unjust and oppressive laws, and the 
amendment of such as are defective, so as to protect the slaves 
from cruel treatment by wicked men, and secure to them the 
right to receive religious instruction^ Now, what laws are 
those, the repeal of which the Assembly said, should be 
sought ? There never were laws in any of the slave-holding 
States, which forbid slaves to receive oral instruction. The 
laws referred to, therefore, were those which forbid their being 
taught to read the Wordof God. Yet that body is charged 



ON SLAVERY. 195 

with approving the withholding of the Scriptures from the 
slaves ! 

[Mr. Blanchard here explained, that he did not charge the 
Assembly with seeldng to withhold the Bible from the slaves, 
but with approving the course of instruction pursued in the 
South, which embraced only oral instruction.] 

Very well. I now, then, ask my brother, is it right, or 
wrong, to give to slaves oral instruction, touching the way of 
salvation? to preach to them the word of life? He admits 
that it is right: he cannot do otherwise. Yet, he blames ma 
and the Assembly for approving and rejoicing in that which 
is right, — for rejoicing that the poor slaves are permitted, in 
any way, to be instructed in the gospel of Christ. The 
Assembly did not approve the withholding of the Bible from 
them. On the contrary, they urged the propriety of repeal- 
insf those laws which forbid their beinof tauofht to read it. 
But they did rejoice, that they heard the gospel, by the faith 
of which, they may be saved. But I really begin to fear, 
our abolition friends will not let the Southern slaves have 
the gospel at all. The laws forbid their reading it, and ih^ 
abolitionists will not go there to preach it to them, nor let us 
commend those who do. On the contrary, they teach prin- 
ciples Avhich, if carried out, would banish every minister 
from the South. Then, what would be the condidon of the 
slaves ? What would be their prospects for eternity ? 

But he says I am for removing slavery " pretty 

considerably soon." I admit that I have never preached, as 
have the Cincinnati Abolition Society, that every slave is 
bound to run away from his master, or that the slaves, in a 
body, are morally bound to get up an insurrection. No : I 
am not quite so much in haste to secure their liberty, as to 
" do evil that good may come." I am for removing the evil 
as soon as it tan be done consistently with the safety of the 
parties concerned. But I hold, that there are other duties 
besides that of giving liberty to the slaves, which I am not 
at liberty to disregard. 

I have never read the resolution which the gentlemaa 



196 DISCUSSION 

says Prof. Thornwell advocated, and therefore can express 
no opinion concerning it. All I can say, is, that if he does 
not hold slavery to be an evil, I differ from him on that 

point. 

The doctrine of the American Colonization Society is 
that slavery is an evil : they propose one way to get rid of 
it: I shall be glad when I hear our abolition friends point 

out a better. 

But if slavery is an evil, the gentleman argues that slave- 
holding must be in itself a sin. That remains to be proved. 
It may be admitted, that " the system of American slavery" is 
a great evil, the removal of which should be sought in all 
proper ways ; and yet it may not be the duty of every slave- 
holder immediately to manumit his slaves. Some of those 
circumstances have been mentioned. Nay, circumstances 
may exist, in which a real injury would be done to the 
slaves by their liberation. 

A despotic government is a great evil, and the Roman 
government was most oppressive and arbitrary in its treat- 
ment, especially of the Provinces. Does it follow, of course, 
that every officer who aided in administering that govern- 
ment, was an atrocious sinner? The Russian government 
is a depotism, and was most cruel and oppressive to the 
Poles: therefore, every officer, civil or military, and every 
private man in that country, who takes an oath of allegiance 
to the government, is a great sinner, and ought to be excom- 
municated ! Such is the absurdity of the principle upon 
which the gentleman undertakes to prove slave-holding m 
itself sinful. It is most manifestly unsound. On the con- 
trary, I maintain, that when by buying and holding a slave, 
I can materially improve his condition, the golden rule, 
which bids us do to others as we would that they should do 
to us, requires me to do it. And although I hold slavery to 
be a o-reat evil, yet, in purchasing a slave, under' such cir- 
cumstances, I am committing no sin, but am doing what the 
law of God requires. 
I. But the gentleman quoted the passage : " Love worketh 



ON SLAVERY. 197 

no ill to Ills neighbor." Very true : it does not. And do I 
do an injury to my neighbor in the case I have just stated? 
The tears of gratitude, on many a black cheek, tell a very 
different tale. What ! because I cannot do him all the good 
I would, do I injure him by doing what good I can? If I 
am not able, without disregarding other paramount duties, 
to buy him and give him his liberty ; or if circumstances 
are such, that m.anumission could not improve his condition ; 
3'et, if I greatly better his condition in that relation, and do 
this at his own earnest request, do I violate the law of love ? 
— What profound absurdit}" ! Yet this is the force of the 
gentleman's argument ! I leave the audience to determine 
whether it proves slavery to be in itself sinful, and the rela- 
tion of master and slave a sinful relation. 

I have never pleaded that slavery ought to have existed, 
or that it ought to be continued. Never. All I insist on is, that 
the slave-holder should not be denounced as the worst of 
malefactors because he finds himself born in the midst of it. 
And especiallj^, that he is not to be called a kidnapper who 
does for a supplicating slave the best that, under existing 
circumstances, he is able. 

When I sat down;, I was urging against the doctrine of the 
abolitionists the fact, that the coarse which their faith leads 
them to pursue, is very different from the course of the 
Apostles who lived in the midst of slavery in its worst forms. 
I stated, that the faith of our abolition friends does not lead 
them to go into the midst of a slave-holding community, and 
preach and remonstrate as the Apostles did, against prevail- 
ing sins. They stay at home and publish papers containing 
libels on christian ministers, such as that on JVlr. Stiles ; and 
they feel at liberty to spread such libels merely because they 
find them in a newspaper, (just as if newspapers never lied!) 
and they can abuse and denounce all slave-holders, and teach 
that the slaves ought to run from their masters, however kind 
they may be ; that they would be justified in rising in a general 
insurrection and cutting the throats of their masters. But did 
Paul take this method of converting men from Paganism? 



198 DISCUSSION 

Did he thus seek to abolish Roman slavery ? Never. I 
say, then, the fact that the practice of the abolitionists is in 
direct contrast to that of the Apostles, affords the strongest 
evidence that their doctrine is not the doctrine of the apos- 
tles. The man is even regarded as a good abolitionist, 
who denounces the whole Amercan Church en masse, as 
made of the vilest of malefactors! Is this the spirit of the 
Apostles ? 

By the way, the gentleman referred to the laws and cus- 
toms of ancient Sparta, where theft was not regarded as a 
crime, but rather as a virtue, if the thief were not detected ; 
and he asks, whether we ought not to preach in such a com- 
munity the doctrine, that theft is in itself sinful ? Ought we 
not to proclaim the command — " Thou shalt not steal ? " Pre- 
cisely so. The language of the law is clear and conclusive 
authority. And now all that I ask of him, is to produce a 
prohibition equally clear of slave-holding. Let him produce 
the law which says — " Thou shalt not hold slaves." I ask not 
for the precise words, but for a law which by fair inference 
forbids it ; and so soon as it can be produced, I will yield the 
question. Till he can produce such a law, his reference to 
Sparta will not help his cause. 

I repeat it, if the abolitionists held the principles of the 
Apostles of Christ, they would act as the Apostles acted. 
But mark the contrast. They remain at a distance, and de- 
nounce slave-holders ; the Apostles went amongst them, and 
preached the gospel to masters and slaves. They seek to ren- 
der the slaves dissatisfied, and to run them to Canada ; the 
Apostles commanded them to be obedient to their masters, 
and to serve them with all fidelity. They justify slave in- 
surrections. Point me to the passage in the epistles of Paul 
and Peter, which gave the slightest encouragement to slaves 
to form an insurrection against their masters. Yet slavery, 
far more intolerable than that which exists in our country, 
existed all around them. The fruits being different, the doc- 
trine is different, else our Lord was mistaken, when he said, 
" The tree is known by its fruit." 



ON SLAVERY 199 

My next argument against the doctrine of the gentleman, 
is this: (And it is, like the last, a practical argument.) The 
actual tendency of abolitionism is to perpetuate, not to abolish, 
slavery, and to aggravate all its evils : and especially, to take 
away a preached gospel both from master and slave. 

The abolition papers abound in details of the most extreme 
cases of the cruel treatment of the slaves ; and those cases, 
such as rarely ever occur, are held up as common occurren- 
ces, as characteristic of slavery. When the people of the 
slave States see this unfair course systematically followed, its 
necessary effect is to irritate them in a very high degree : for 
a good man, as the gentleman has said, may be made mad by 
injustice. Such a course of conduct kills all confidence in 
those who would, as they profess, turn their brethren from 
sin. The Southern slave-holders, seeing such gross misrep- 
resentations of their character and conduct published to the 
world, regard abolitionists as base slanderers: and so be- 
lieving, is it strange that their homilies have no manner of 
influence at the South, unless it be the very reverse of that 
which is professedly sought ? It is vain for men who run off 
their slaves, and preach insurrection to those that remain, to 
attempt to influence the people of the slave-holding States. 
He who knows anything of human nature, must know that 
it is impossible. 

But they take care not to preach their doctrines in person. 
No, no. They say to their ministerial brethren, in the slave 
States, '• Brethren, be faithful — lift up your voice like a trum- 
pet — clear your skirts of the blood of the slave." Yes : and 
Avhy will not you come over and help us do it ? Ah, that is 
another affair. The brother said, he w^ould be willing to die 
at the end of his speech, if he could but persuade all this 
audience to become abolitionists ; but he is in free Ohio. I 
believe he has never gone over the river, to show how cheer- 
fully he would lose his life in this good cause. [A laugh.] 
But they tell us, if they go into slave States, they will be 
persecuted! Suppose this true : what then? Did persecu- 



200 DISCUSSION. 

tion Stop the Apostles? Were not they persecuted? aye, 
and put to death, while testifying the truth? n 

But now, supposing- all the ministers at the South should 
turn abolitionists, before tomorrow morning, w^hat would be 
the result? We should see them come teeming over the 
Ohio, like squin-els, with the wind in their tails. In a few 
dn^'s not a minister would be left, and neither slave nor mas- 
ter would hear the gospel more ! 

Yet, if slavery is ever to be abolished in the slave-hold- 
ing States, the gospel, it is admitted, must do it. All our 
old churches in the older free States were formed and organ- 
ized by slave-holders, and in the midst of slave-holding. 
They admitted slave-holders, without hesitation, to member- 
ship in the church. The brother himself, I have little 
doubt, came out from such a church. All the churches 
began with just such doctrines as are now preached in the 
South and West. Yet, in many of the States, slavery has 
been abolished. Public sentiment was gradually moulded 
and elevated under the influence of the gospel, until the 
work was quietly effected. The gospel will abolish it in 
the residue, if abolished it ever shall be. And how ? By 
its soul-elevating, and purifying principles and spirit, brought 
to bear directly on the slave-holder: not by denunciations and 
slanders, hurled at him through tracts and newspapers. He 
will awake at the still small voice of love ; not at the thun- 
ders of excommunication. But if you take the gospel out 
of the Southern States, how are they ever to be delivered 
from the evil ? This is the direct tendency of abolition : it 
kills the only influence that ever will induce Southern mas- 
ters to liberate their slaves. [Time expired. 



ON SLAVERY. 201 

Thursday Evening, 9 o'clock. 

[MR, BLANCHARd's EIGHTH SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen Moderators^ and Gentlemen and Ladies, Felloic- 

Citizens : 

I am not certain that I shall be able to detain you for thirty- 
minutes. I shall notice a few things which my brother has 
said, and then if I feel the pain in my head less, I shall pro- 
ceed, 

I should be more happy if my brother would waive the 
privilege, of seeming to accuse me of unwillingness to meet 
the question. As regularly as a clock, when he rises, he 
strikes the hour of the debate, and then tells you what I 
have not done, and what he fully believes that I will not do. 
Many of his arguments I have met. Yet, leaving these, he 
tells you I have ''not answered his argument from the golden 
rule," etc. I have prepared an argument on that subject, 
which I will deliver at the proper time. He tells you, also, 
for the third or fourth time, what Dr. Cunningham and Dr. 
Chalmers have said concerning abolitionism. I have also 
an argument on the general subject of authorities, these in- 
cluded. It would not be necessary to notice these affkma- 
tions of his about myself, but for that they may lead some 
simple minds to suppose that I am not here, as a Christian 
man, to meet and reply to every point vital to this debate. 
He does not appear to be doing much himself, or to have 
any sentiments which he is anxious to prove, except con- 
cerning myself For this, he told you, very logically and 
gravely, that I was " the most remarkable man for mis- 
representation of facts, whom he had ever heard speak," I 
think my friend is in danger of falling into the sin of scoff- 
inof and railinsf. 

He gave you, however, a reply to what I said upon his 
lauding those Southern Presbyterians, who, professing to 
teach slaves, withhold the Bible from them. He says he 
" does not praise their Bible-withholding, but he praises the 
oral instruction wdiich they do give ! " This is capital. 



202 DISCUSSION 

But why docs lie not treat the Papists in the same way? 
Do they not give much good oral instruction? Why not 
praise them for that, and blink at their withholding the Bi- 
ble ? The steward of the ship in which I came across the 
Atlantic, was a Roman Catholic, yet a faithful, conscientious 
man. He had his Douay Bible, which he read often. He 
had also some excellent tracts, which he kept^ carefully, and 
read. He prayed daily ; and I would, after careful obser- 
vation, sooner take his chance of heaven than that of many 
a slavery-defending protestant minister. So also, a nurse, on 
board, had been taught, in infancy, by her Papist mother, to 
pray — " Our Father" and ^^now I lay me down to sleep" — 
as my mother taught me. Why does my brother conduct a 
paper against Roman Catholics, and yet laud slave-holding 
Presbyterians, who teach religion upon the same plan? viz: 
giving some good oral instruction, yet withholding the Bi- 
ble ? He tells you that he condemns the Papists for the er- 
rors which they teach. And is it not a damning error in 
Presbyterians to withhold the Bible from those whom Christ 
has commanded to "search the ScEiptures?" 

I dislike to bring forward the derelictions of my brother ; 
but there are Sv.me things which have Mien from him, 
which, if 1 pass unnoticed, I might be thought to counte- 
nance. I mean his sneers at the " colored fraternit}^," their 
" hymns," etc., etc. I spoke of the enslaving of smiling, 
helpless, unconscious "infancy," etc. My brother told you 
that I described a little babe smiling in its mother's arms, 
but that I ^^ did not say whether it teas handsome;" refer- 
ring, I suppose, to its colored skin. Now, I suppose that 
every babe is handsome to its mother at least; and I must 
take leave to say, that such sneers at the complexion of color- 
ed people, do no credit to either the head or heart of a min- 
ister of Christ. 

I am pained also, at my friend's apparent zeal to cast op- 
probrium on the Rev. James Duncan. I have told you that 
he was the father of Dr. Duncan, our late representative in 
congress, who, in conversation with me, declared his father's 



ON SLAVERY. 203 

sentiments on slavery to be his own. The Rev. James Dun- 
can wrote and published his book on slavery, in 1824, eight 
years before the first modern anti-slavery society. He had 
■just left a pastoral charge in Kentucky, some sixty miles 
below Cincinnati, and crossed to Vevay, Ind., where he pub- 
lished his book, with a soul burning with the wrongs and 
wretchedness endured by the slaves. His was an original 
mind, of giant mould. He preached from log cabin to log 
cabin, in the early western settlements ; always poor, yet 
learned, and studious, and laborious. He saw principles 
with amazing clearness, and uttered them with correspond- 
ing strength. He died on one of these mission-tours, 
preaching as he w^ent, at a house where he put up for the 
night, in the borders of Indiana. '•^Requicscat iii pace.^^ I 
hope my brother will let his ashes rest. If he must have 
something to find fault with, I will give him some of my 
pamphlets. 

Gentlemen Mod-erators — I v/ill give a further brief reply 
on the subject of marriage. My brother, with a pertinacity 
as strange as it is illogical, insists, that slavery is not de- 
structive of marriage. While he was speaking I could not 
but ask myself what blinding cause oppressed him ? and, 
in what corner of his mind the source of his error lay ? And 
I confess, I know not how or by what fallacy he is kept 
from seeing the truth, unless it be that slavery cannot travel 
up to God, and make his judgments coincide with the deter- 
minations of slavery. " God will not punish slaves for 
* taking up ' without marriage," (he seems to mean,) '' and 
therefore, in God's eye, they are married." But this is 
monstrous reasoning. Are they married as by slavery? 
that is the question. If not, (and he knows they are not,) 
then by denying that slavery destroys marriage will be mer- 
ciful. His argument gives to slavery the merit of God's 
mercy. Slavery adjudges slaves unmarried, and incapable 
of marriage. It holds the slave-pair in separation ; ready 
to be sold apart. He tells us, but they are vain words, that 
the husband and wife are not separated in slavery, unless the 



204 DISCUSSION 

master chooses to part them. But if I come to own a man 
and his wife, are they not already separated so far as the 
nuptial tie bound them, and ready to be sold apart whenever 
I will to sell them ? Suppose I sell the w^oman, and the 
purchaser goes to get her ; has he anything to do but lead 
her off? Is there anything to be done to separate her from 
her husband ? Obviously nothing. She ceased, by the theory 
of slavery, to be her husband's wife, when she became my 
woman. The property principle is stronger in law and 
practice than the marriage principle, and prevails over it. 
And brother Rice is here to maintain, that when I have 
fairly bought the woman, she is mine. Slave-holding is not 
sinful. He gives me God's permission to hold her: and 
they are separated by the naked fact that they are property. 

True, God may not punish in hell the slave man and wo- 
man, who, being prohibited marriage, take up together, and 
are true to each other ; but no thanks are due to slavery that 
he does not, for if he followed either its laws or its practice, 
he would declare the parents unmarried, and illegitimate their 
children. What candor, or sense, therefore, can there be 
in declaring that slaves may be and are married, in the open 
face of the fact that marriage has never existed among slaves 
from the times of Aristotle down. I read from the learned 
Dr. Robertson's History of Charles V., p. .13, Note 9 :— 

Of slaves, he says — " They were not originally permitted 
tx) marry. Male and female slaves were allowed and even 
encouraged to cohabit together. But this union was not 
considered as a marriage ; it was called contubernium, not 
nuptiae or matrimoniuin.'''' And again : 

" All the children of slaves were in the same condition of 
their parents, and became the property of the master. Slaves 
were so entirely the property of their masters, that they 
could sell them at pleasure. While domestic slavery con- 
tinued, property in a slave was held in the same manner with 
that which a person had in any other moveable." 

So was slavery in Greece : so was it in Rome : so is it to- 
day in Kentucky. What was slavery then is slavery now. 



1 



ON SLAVERY. 205 

And if my friend can now rise up and tell you, against autho- 
rities such as Dr. Robertson, — against the authoritative de- 
claration of all the slave-codes ever enacted, — against history 
itself, and against what you know to be the uniform practice, 
heretofore and now, — that marriage exists among slaves, and 
that slavery is free from the sin of marriage-breaking, I feel 
certain that few will believe him. 

I am aware that my friend calculates on the adherence of 
friends from Kentucky, of whom there are many present. 
But I trust that here even he will find himself mistaken. 
There is a force in truth to leave impressions which the 
mind cannot shake off, and especially in the truth that it is 
sinful to make merchandize of men. It will follow them to 
their homes, and live and burn in their consciences, when 
the prejudices of the hour are, with the circumstances of this 
debate, passed away; 

A money-loving, hardened man, in southern Pennsylvania, 
told me that when he put his hand to paper to sign a bill of 
sale for the transfer of a human being, his arm trembled and 
shook to his shoulder-blade. There is not a power, prin- 
ciple, or faculty included in the awful circle of humanity but 
shudders at the motions of this horrid property-power, as 
the trees of Eden trembled at the movements of Satan in the 
fall of man. You may go, Kentuckians, to your homes, but 
the truths to which you here listen, apart from any power 
of argument, by their own vital force, will abide with you as 
an omnipresent blaze, showing you everything about your 
negro-quarters in a light in which you never beheld them 
before, and making you one in understanding and heart with 
the promoters of liberty, and friends of the slave. — For the 
truth is God's, and God's unseen power is in it. 

I met Theodore F. Leftwick, a tobacco merchant, of 
Liberty, Va., upon a steamboat ; told him I was an abolitionist, 
and, knowing him for a southern man, asked him of his slaves. 
*' Thank God, I have none," was his prompt and warm reply. 
Though opposed to what he understood to be abolitionism, 
and pitying me because an abolitionist, he said that he had 



206 ■ DISCUSSION 

some twenty-five slaves, who, if sold, would have brought 
an average of $500 each, when Joshua Leavitt was editing 
the N. Y. Evangelist ; that he was provoked with the pa- 
per, on account of the editor's denouncing slavery as a sin, 
but continued to take it on his wife's account, " until," said 
Leftwick, " I should be ashamed to tell you what harrowings 
of conscience, and what horrid images followed me, even in 
my sleep, till I resolved to free every slave I had. From 
that hour, I have slept as sweet as a child, and if I had had 
ten thousand slaves, I would have emancipated them every 
morning since ; though," he added, " I know, and my friends 
will tell you, that I love money full as well as my neighbors." 

Facts of this kind — and there are thousands, are their own 
argument. They are the voice of nature in the first born 
elements of man proclaiming war against the grinding tyranny 
of personal slavery, with God and conscience on their side. 
You may cloud the solemn truth that holding slaves is a sin 
with prejudice, or darken it by reproach ; or dazzle and 
confound it with the ecclesiastical subtleties of trained po- 
lemicism, and wire-drawn argument ; yet, there it stands, 
bold, honest, open, and uncompromising ; and its voice will 
be heard, and obeyed, when the flimsy and carping objections 
which may be heaped upon it are perished, passed away and 
forgot. 

In resuming, as I now do, the direct argument to prove that 
slave-holding is sin, I wish to observe that one of my friend's 
propositions, to wit : that the minds of men apprehend and 
admit general principles in morals, is generally, though by 
no means universally true. Even at the present day, when 
truth is eclipsed and overborne by the practical corruptions 
of society, it is yet true, with exceptions, that the soul con- 
structed upon the model of God's law, will bear witness to 
those moral principles which are the elements and substance 
of that law. The exceptions are those minds which are bias- 
sed by corruption or interest ; those who cannot see right prin- 
ciples through a guinea. It is by reason of this principle that 
slave-holders themselves testify that emancipation is a blessing 



ON SLAVERY. 207 

and slavery a curse. And I present, as my next direct ar- 
gument the following : 

That holding innocent men in slavery is a sin, is proved 
by the action of those slave State legislatures and grateful 
masters, %vho have emancijpated slaves for meritorious ser- 
vices. 

Every such emancipation (and these have been many) is 
proof that the legislature and the individual emancipator, 
know that slavery is an evil, and liberty a good. 

Does it require argument to show that they know also that 
inflicting an evil upon unoffending persons, and withholding 
good M^hich is their right is sin ? This is precisely what 
slave-holders are doing to their slaves — and their slave-hold- 
inff is therefore sin. 

They make liberty a reward for the most meritorious 
services, and ^slavery the punishment for certain kinds of 
crime ; what then is the moral character of depriving a man 
of that which is in itself a reward, and inflicting upon him 
"what is in itself a curse 1 If I hang an innocent man, I am 
myself a murderer ; if I deprive an innocent man of his 
goods, I am a robber. What am I, if I deprive him of his 
liberty — a possession brighter than gold, and dearer than life ? 
A slave-holder ! I know it is said that, though liberty is of 
priceless value to them who have enjoyed and can appreciate 
it, it is less important to those who have always been slaves 
and know no other state. But it is slaves who are freed for 
meritorious services. Liberty is thus solemnly declared io 
be the. highest boon which can be bestowed on slaves. He 
then who holds slaves in slavery, holds them in deprivation 
of what slave State legislatures have declared a blessing and 
a good to them ; — and he holds them thus bereft, without 
pretence of crime on their "part. Slave-holders,, therefore, 
by granting freedom as a reward, admit that every slave- 
holder is funishing the innoceiit — and punishing the innocent 
is sin. 

But, they say: "We did not deprive the slaves of liberty 
but we found them so." 



208 DISCUSSION 

This is true of those who were adults, or were horn he- 
fore the slave-holders ; but infants are not "found slaves" 
by their owners, but made so. But what is this plea of " find- 
ing- them slaves'?" My father, or father's father, enslaves 
men, and I take them and their descendants and retain them 
in slavery. I then admit that to enslave them in the first 
instance, was wrong, but adopt and prolong, and justify 
the crime! My father locks an innocent man in prison, 
and dying, wills me the key. I put the key in my pocket, 
and keep the man in prison. Where, I ask, is the difference 
between my father's sin and miine? Was not my father's 
act a sin ? " Certainly," it is said, " when slavery began, it 
was a sin in the enslaver." But if you were in prison, and 
knew I had the key of 3'our dungeon in my pocket, would 
you not justly hold me equally guilty with the man who 
put you there ? And what is American slavery but keeping 
up, on the persons of innocent men, a punishment fit only 
for criminals ? 

But I argue further, that slave-holding is sin, because it 
is going with a multitude to do evil. 

Slave-holding is not a solitary, but a social sin. It re- 
quires conspiracy and combination to perpetuate it. 

Suppose, for illustration, one hundred men, cast upon an 
Island, find themselves its only occupants. They have no 
civil polity, no mail, none of the appliances of government, 
and no distinction of ruled and rulers, but are individuals in 
a state of nature. Suppose, now, one out of this hundred 
wishes to enslave ten or twenty of his fellows, it is plainly 
impossible for him to do so, because no one has the strength 
of ten, and without interference by the others, it is impossi- 
ble for him to make them his slaves. 

My own native State has even been in this state of nature 
in respect to slavery. A slave-holder who had pursued his 
fugitive to Vermont, brought him before one of the courts, 
proved that the runaway was his property, and asked for 
the necessary authority to take him home. The Judge de- 
clared the testimony insufficient to sustain his title. Per 



ON SLAVERY. ' 209 

spiring with vexation, the slave-holder asked his honor 
"what evidence would be sufficient?" "Nothing," said 
Judge Harrington, " nothing short of a bill of sale from the 
Almighty will enable you to take that man from this Court 
as your property?" The man-holder was obliged to relin- 
quish ail hope of his victim. He had not power, personally, 
and unaided by the laws, to re-enslave his fugitive. 

Thus, gentlemen, while men are in a state of nature, 
anterior to society, slavery cannot exist, and does not. 
Among the hundred Islanders, no one can enslave ten by 
his individual force. He must ally force with fraud, and 
bring cunning to the aid of cruelty. He must first mould 
and concentrate the individual force of the whole hundred 
into a government, and, by dexterous management, wield 
that for the enslavement of his ten. This is precisely what 
he does ; and thus, under the name of government, and the 
sacred forms of law, he achieves an object which, had he 
attempted it by his own single strength, would have cost him 
his life, as a despicable and impotent tyrant, and pirate upon 
the persons and peace of other men. This is ^^ going with 
a multitude to do eviW And this is slave-holding. 

The slave-holder does not rest his claim to his fellow man 
upon his own prowess or force ; but feels about for some 
system of slave-legislation, which he may take advantage of 
to compel his slaves to bear his burdens — thus wielding the 
power of the whole hundred to enslave his ten. What then 
is holding slaves by law, but " going with a multitude to do 
evil ?" Is not this precisely the case of the American slave- 
holder at this day ? 

But m}'- brother tells you, over and again, that the ques- 
tion is not whether kidnapping and enslaving men is right ; 
he therefore contends that such illustrations as that of one 
man using the power of an hundred to enslave ten, are not 
relevant. The question, he says, is whether holding these 
kidnapped persons and their descendants in slavery is sin ; 
or, in his own words ; v~'hether, holding persons in slavery, 

who are already enslaved, be sinful % That is true enough : 
14 



210 DISCUSSION, 

and that is the very question I am discussing. But I am 
showing also that American slave-holding— taking free in- 
fants from God's hands and placing them in slavery is kid- 
napping and slavery too. 

But to set the whole matter wholly beyond cavil ; sup- 
pose those Island citizens all die, after ten had become slaves 
to one ; that I am the son of that slave-holder, and I make 
that fact a pretext to hold in slavery the children of thosQ 
ten persons whom my father enslaved ? And that I take 
their infant offspring as fast as born and reckon and register 
them among my cattle and swine, as my property. Where 
then would be the least moral difference between my case 
and that of the present American slave-holders ? Can any 
one fail to see that, if I am the robber and plunderer of my 
species, he is no less ? 

The whole United States' power is but the hand-vice into 
which the slave-holder screws his. slave, and by which the 
slave " is held to service or labor," and the United States 
statute, a tether to bind the hands and feet of those whom the 
rapacity and violence of our ancestors have enslaved and pla- 
ced in our power. Slave-holding, is therefore explicitly for- 
bidden by God in the words : " Thou shalt not follow a 
multitude to do evil." [_Time expired. 



[MR. rice's eighth SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen Moderators^ and Fellow-Citizens : 

In closing the discussion of this day, I confess that I have 

been disappointed, and so, I presume, have the audience. 

They were informed by the gentleman, that they would hear 

the Bible argument in favor of his views this evening: You 

have heard what sort of a Bible argument it has been. 

[Mr. Blaxciiard, interposing. — I said I would come to the 

direct argument.] 

Then the direct argument in favor of abolitionism is not a 

Bible argument, the gentleman himself being judge. [Great 

laughter.] 



ON SLAVERY. 211 

The gentleman is now through ; we are closing a discus- 
sion of twelve hours ; he agrees with me, that the Bible is 
the only rule of right and wrong; yet, in the whole of that 
time he has brought but one solitary passage to sliow that 
his doctrine is true! The direct argument, it is evident, is 
not a Bible argument. This he has virtually admitted, and 
I thank him for the concession. The truth is, no abolitionist 
relies upon the Bible for proof of the doctrine, that slave- 
holding is in itself sinful ; and I am glad my friend has come 
to "the direct argument," and given us no Bible. 

The gentleman is quite disturbed that I should so fre- 
quently tell the audience what he has not done. Well, I do 
not doubt that it is distressing : I hope he will be as com- 
fortable as possible ; but really I cannot help it. The fact 
is, that he has argued twelve hours, and has not only failed 
to support his doctrine by the Bible, but has scarcely touched 
one of the main arguments I have offered against it ! 

He has, indeed, placed before us in glowing colors, the 
cruelty which wicked men sometimes practice toward their 
slaves. And he asks whether there Avas anything about that 
slave cofPiC with which he opened his side of the debate, 
which I condemn 1 He knows that I condemn traffic in 
slaves as severely as he does ; but does that prove the rela- 
tion of master and slave to be in itself sinful 1 I condemn 
the burning of Hindoo widows, but I do not on that account 
condemn the marriage relation as sinful. Does my opponent 
condemn the conjugal relation, because wicked men take ad- 
vantage of it to treat females cruelly, as he does the relation 
of master and slave for the same reason? The sufferings of 
the slave-gang are not caused by the relation^ but by the 
cruelty of slave-dealers. Does the fact, that Nero was a 
monster of cruelty, prove that the relation of ruler and ruled 
is sinful ? Will my brother on this account denounce civil 
government ? Yet the principle on which he reasons, requires 
that he should ; for the cases, as to the principle involved, 
are the same. 

But he asks, why I do not praise the Papists for the truth 



212 DISCUSSION , 

they teach, as I approve tlie conduct of southern Chris- 
tians in having the gospel preached to their slaves ? I do 
give them due credit for every word of truth they teach ; 
but this does not hinder me from exposing their errors, where 
they err. But he charges the General Assembly with sanc- 
tioning the withholding of the Scriptures from the slaves. 
The truth of this charge I denied, and disproved. Now what 
did the Assembly say on this subject in their report? Did 
they not say, that every Christian and philanthropist should 
use all proper means to have the laws repealed, which forbid 
the slaves beinof tauo-ht to read the word of God? Where in 
that Report does the Assembly sanction the giving to them 
merely oral instruction in Christian doctrine? Nowhere. 
On the contrary, it exhorts masters to give them the Bible. 
And in the very face of these facts, my opponent charges the 
Assembly with sanctioning the withholding of the Bible 
from the slaves ! Has he not strangely misrepresented that 
body? 

I uttered no sneer, as the gentleman charges, against my 
colored brethren; — far, very feir from it: I was, indeed, 
amused at his eloquent description of the beautiful babe 
stolen by the hard-hearted master from the cradle ; and be- 
cause I was amused at him, he would make the impression 
that I was sneering at colored persons ! 

My friend is disturbed by my quotations from Duncan's 
pamphlet, republished by the Cincinnati Abolition Society, 
and he says, he does not approve of every comma^ and every 
semicolon^ in Mr. Duncan's pamphlet. Perhaps he does not; 
but I did not quote either commas or semicolons, but the ab- 
horrent sentiments, that the term slave-holder, like the word 
DEVIL, is a name to be uttered only with abhorrence ; that 
nothing proves so clearly the necessity of a hell, as the fact 
that there are slave-holders in the world ; that servile insur- 
rections arc justifiable, and the man who would raise his arm 
to suppress them, will be eternally punished in hell ! Will 
he attempt to escape the odium justly connected with these 
abominable principles, w^hich run through the entire worlc, 



ON SLAVERY. 213 

by saying-, that he does not approve every comma and semi- 
colon in it ! ! ! Are these sentiments commas and semicolons ? 
But Mr. Duncan has deceased ; and he thinks, therefore, I 
ought not thus to comment on his sentiments. He could 
state facts injurious to the reputation of the venerable Dr. 
Baxter, without producing one particle of proof of their truth ; 
but it is quite improper for me to say a word about Mr. Dun- 
can's published sentiments ! Ah, it is one thing for your ox 
to gore mine ; quite another for my ox to gore yours. 

But the gentleman is kind enough io offer me some of his 
publications, if I will only spare Mr. Duncan's. I am ob- 
liged to him ; but I prefer Mr. Duncan's pamphlet, for the 
plain and important reason, that it has been endorsed by the 
Cmcinnati Abolition Society^ — an honor which, so far as I 
know, has not been conferred on any one of his. This pam- 
phlet is now no longer Mr. Duncan's; it is the Cincinnati 
Abolition Society's work, and contains their sentiments — sen- 
timents which every enlightened Christian and patriot must 
abhor, as adapted to excite servile insurrection, and deluge 
our land in blood. But the gentleman objects only to some 
of its commas Qw^ semicolons!!! 

My opponent once more reiterates the assertion, that slave- 
holding destroys the marriage relation. Marriage is a di- 
vinely constituted relation, the validity of which depends 
simply upon the authority of God. Has he proved that 
slavery annuls it? What would have been the proper course 
for him to pursue in proving it ? It would have been, first, 
to show, from the Bible, what marriage is, what is essential 
to the relation ; and then show how slave-holding abolishes 
this. But did he take this course ? Not at all. There was 
no reference to the Bible in his whole argument. I might 
meet his assertion by a simple denial ; but neither assertions 
nor denials will settle the point. 

But I have proved that Constantino passed laws forbidding 
husbands and wives, parents and children, among slaves, to 
be separated. Will the gentleman assert that these laws 
abolished slavery? — that it no longer existed in the Roman 



214 DISCUSSION 

Empire ? This he will not pretend, for he admits that it 
existed for several centuries after they were passed. He 
must, therefore, admit that slavery may exist, that it has ex- 
isted' without destroying the marriage relation. Under the 
laws' to which I have referred, and Avhich I have quoted, 
husbands and wives could not be separated. They remain- 
ed together till death. Precisely such laws might exist, and 
I will add, ought to exist, in Kentucky, and other slave- 
holding States. 

The gentleman proves, by two arguments, that slave-hold- 
ing destroys the marriage relation. The first is, that the 
outward formalities of marriage, sanctioned by the Bible, 
are not observed. 1 have called upon him to state what for- 
malities or ceremonies are sanctioned by the Bible. His 
only reply is, that Samson had a procession and a feast of 
seven days ! Well, does the Bible teach that the procession 
and feast were essential to the validity of the marriage ? I 
hope not ; for if so, very few of us, I fear, are lawfully mar- 
ried. For myself, when I was married, I really had not 
time to enjoy a seven-days feast. [A laugh.] I was cer- 
tainly not aware that the Scriptures required any particular 
ceremonies as necessary to marriage ; and it would save the 
gentleman's time and his voice, (for he complains of hoarse- 
riess,) if he would point us to the Scripture which requires 
ceremonies of any kind. He says he has proved it ; but I 
presume he only means, that he has asserted it. 

His second argument is, that the civil law does not recog-- 
nize the marriage of slaves. Suppose it does not, I have 
asked him to show us where the Scriptures make recog- 
nition of marriage by the civil law necessary to its validity, 
and I have asked in vain. But, as I have proved, the laws 
passed by Constantine did recognize the marriage of slaves, 
and did forbid the separation of husbands and wives. Still 
Mr. B. asserts, that slavery necessarily dissolves the relation, 
or rather makes it impossible ! 

I My friend seems to think, he is pouring out truths which 
w^ill burn most awfully in the consciences of the Kentucki- 



ON SLAVERY. 215 

ans wlio happen to be present; and he tells of us a man in 
Adams coimt}^, who trembled clear up to the shoulder, 
whenever he signed a bill of sale of a slave. [A laugh.] 
Well, he ought to have trembled, if he was selling them 
against their will, or into a worse condition. And there 
was a slave-holder in Virginia, who took Mr. Leavitt's paper, 
and he could not sleep, because he " kept saying^^ that 
slave-holding is a sin, (not because he proved it;) but when 
he had liberated twenty-four slaves, he slept soundly. So 
he keeps sayi7ig that slave-holding is an abominable sin ; and 
he expects thus terribly to burn the consciences of Ken- 
tuckians. [A laugh.] But one fact the gentleman stated 
about that man, struck me as very singular, viz : when Mr. 
Blanchard told him, that he was an Abolitionist, he said — 
" then I pity you ! " And yet the man had himself been 
made an abolitionist by Mr. Leavitt's paper 1 Why did he, 
then, pity Mr. B. ? Did he pity him because he was so 
much more enlightened than most men ? Do abolitionists 
thus pity abolitionists? This is certainly a very curious 
story ! 

But legislatures have sometimes liberated slaves ; and this 
fact is brought forward to prove slave-holding in itself sinful. 
It proves, I admit, that they considered slavery an evil, and 
freedom a very desirable blessing. But does it prove, that 
v/hen I buy a slave at his own request, so as to improve his 
condition, I have done a very wicked thing? Surely the 
premises and the conclusion are as far as the poles apart. 
Yet, this is the gentlemian's ^''direct argument" — or more 
propeily, his direct assertion." 

Or, does the fact referred to, prove, that the immediate 
emancipation of all the slaves of the slave-holding States, 
amongst the white population, would be a blessing to them 1 
Liberty is, indeed, a blessing ; but it is a blessing which all 
men are not prepared to improve. It is more than doubtful, 
whether, should a constitution, such as that of the U. States, 
be adopted to-morrow in Mexico, the condition of the people 
would be any the better for it. And why? Because they are 



216 DISCUSSION 



not prepared to live under a government so free as ours. 
Nor is it at all clear, that the inhabitants of Russia or of 
South America would be happier or more prosperous under 
a government administered upon the principles of our gov- 
ernment. Admit that a constitution so free as ours is the 
best in the world, does it follow, that every man who fills an 
office in a more despotic government is a heinous sinner? 
Whether the immediate emancipation of the slaves, with 
their present character, habits, and circumstances, would 
prove a blessing to them, is, to say the least, a debateable 
question. 

The gentleman, whether by way of illustration or as an 
argument I know not, imagines a hundred men cast on a 
desolate island, and ninety of them combined to reduce ten 
of their number to a state of slavery. Such conduct would 
indeed be most reprehensible ; but does this supposed case 
present the principle we are met to discuss? If it was his 
intention to discuss the question, whether it is right to reduce 
by force free men to a state of slavery^ why did he not say so? 
Why did not the challengers state this as the question for 
discussion ? Had they done so, I would not have thought 
of accepting their challenge, for a single moment. But the 
question, I must once more remind him, is, whether slave- 
holding is in itself sinful; and I will further remind him, 
that the wisest and best men, even in his own New-England, 
assert openly that it is not. If the matter is so perfectly ob- 
vious as his supposition makes it, how happens it, that those 
good and eminent men answer it in one way, and my brother 
in another? The question, as I have repeatedly remarked, 
is not whether it is right to enslave free men ; but since the 
Africans have already been enslaved, without my agency, 
and before I was born, how far I am bound immediately "to 
set them free, and how far I can do it consistently with other 
paramount duties ? What is the duty of men who own a 
large number of slaves in the southern States, where the laws 
forbid emancipation ? What is the duty of the man who 
purchased slaves at their own request, in order to improve 



ON SLAVERY. 217 

their condition, and promote their happiness ? Why cannot 
the gentleman be induced to meet the cases I have repeat- 
edly presented, and dispose of them ? 

[Mr. Blanchard. I will] 

He promises fairly; but why has he not done it? I ven- 
ture the assertion, that he never will fairly meet and dispose 
of them. I do not say, he will not try. 

He repeats the assertion, that slave-holding is kidnapping; 
I have listened for the proof, but I have not heard it. This is 
the capital defect in his argument. 

One of the arguments I have urged against abolitionism, 
is, that its tendency is to perpetuate slavery, and to aggra- 
vate all its evils. I remarked, that if all the ministers of 
the slave-holding States should suddenly become abolition- 
ists, if they should imbibe the spirit of tho abolitionists on 
this side of the Ohio river, they would all forthwith aban- 
don their fields of labor, and seek the free States. And 
what, let me ask, would be the consequences ? Would such 
a course abolish slavery ? Would it not have the opposite 
tendency ? It would take from the masters the gospel, the 
only influence likely to dispose them to emancipate their 
slaves. The abolitionists remind me of one of your steam- 
doctors, who, to effect an immediate cure of a disease, kills 
the patient by one tremendous dose. They have succeeded, 
it is true, in running off a few slaves to Canada — a course 
which, without benefiting them, seriously injures those left 
behind. By aggravating masters, and making them suspi- 
.picious of their slaves, it makes them less inclined than be- 
fore to treat them kindly, or to grant them their liberty. Be- 
lieving such to be the tendency and the effect of abolitionism, 
I must oppose it. How different the course pursued by the 
apostles of Christ. Far from advising slaves to leave their 
masters, and from industriously collecting and publishing all 
manner of stories injurious to the character of slaveholders, 
they went amongst masters and slaves, proclaiming to each 
*' the unsearchable riches of Christ," and exhorting each tp 
the faithful discharge of their relative duties. 



218 DISCUSSION 

^ But what is worse still, the tendency of abolitionism is to 
take the gospel from the slaves also, and leave them without 
the consolations of religion, — the hopes of eternal life. 
Only let its doctrines prevail, and Rev. C. C. Jones and other 
ministers who are engaged in preaching to them the word 
of life, must cease their labors, and retire to the free States. 
Then what will become of the souls of the slaves ? Will 
they become the frcedmen of Christ % Paul, the apostle, 
said to slaves — "Art thou called being a servant, care not for 
it." His great concern was, that the soul — the immortal 

part should enjoy the liberty wherewith Christ would 

make it free — that the slaves might enjoy eternal liberty 
and happiness in heaven. But the great concern of aboli- 
tionists seems to be for their bodies — their freedom from the 
yoke of man, not from bondage to sin and Satan. In the 
day of judgment, multitudes of the slaves will stand on the 
right hand of the Judge, clothed in garments of spotless 
white. And to whom, under C4od, will they ascribe their 
salvation ? To those very ministers who are the objects of 
the vituperation and reproaches of abolitionists. And for 
whom, in that day, will those pious slaves thank God? 
Will they thank him for the labors of those men who stood 
at a distance, and abused their masters, because they did not 
set them at liberty ; or of those who, more concerned for 
the salvation of their souls, than for their bodily freedom, 
went and preached to them the glorious gospel 1 I leave 
the audience to answer the question. And now, in view of 
the tendency and effects of abolitionism, compared with the 
views I am defending, let me ask the candid and unpreju- 
diced, which doctrine is true — theirs or ours 1 

The gentleman may attempt to refute the arguments I 
have offered ; but I doubt it: Certain I am, that the attempt, 
if made, will prove unsuccessful. I confess, I have been 
disappointed by the course he has thought proper to pursue ; 
and so, I doubt not, have the great majority of the audience. 
I did suppose, that what he calls his " direct argument " would 



ON SLAVERY. 219 

be a Bible argument ; but I have heard nothing adduced 
from the inspired volume. 

To-morrow I purpose to enter more directly on the Bible 
argument, whether my opponent does so or not. I shall go 
to the infallible rule. I will measure strength with the 
gentleman on scripture ground, which after all, is the true 
ground. Let us leave the slave gang, and the cruelties of 
slave-dealing, and the oppressions and wrongs perpetrated 
by wicked men, and go " to the law and to the testimony." 
Let him shew from the Bible, that the Patriarchs did not hold 
slaves: let him prove from that authority, that there were no 
slaves in the apostolic churches ; that the Apostles excluded 
slave-holders from the church of God. Let him prove 
these things, and we will give up the question. After deba- 
ting twelve hours, this has not been done. Nothing bearing 
on the question we are discussing, has been adduced either 
from the Old Testament or from the New. Half the debate, 
if not more, is over ; his " direct argument" is nearly com- 
pleted, and no Bible argument has yet been heard from the 
gentleman. This is truly singular, if it be true, as he be- 
lieves and asserts, that I am in darkness, and he in the pure 
light of the gospel. Has it ever yet been found, that men 
who love darkness, insist on going to the light 1 And that 
men who love the light, are reluctant to come to it ? The 
gentleman thinks that we are in darkness ; his bowels of 
compassion yearn over us ; and he pours out his prayers in 
our behalf And yet, though we cease not to urge him to 
come to the Word of God, we cannot induce him to ap- 
proach it! ! When I came here this evening, I brought 
my Bible with me. 1 expected to need it ; but I have had no 
use for it in replying to him ; nor, judging from his past 
course, am I likely to have. [Time expired. 



220 DISCUSSION 

Friday, 2 o'clock, P. M., Oct. 3, 1S45. 

[MR. BLANCHARD's NINTH SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen Moderators^ and Gentlemen and Ladies^ Fellow- 
Citizens : 

I regret more than you will, though you will regret it, 
that I have to beg the indulgence of the audience, for an 
over-worked voice, and frame somewhat enfeebled by pres- 
ent illness, and enfeebled health. 

I left my bed after 12 o'clock, to-day, for the first time, 
havinn- been all the while under the influence of medicine. 
But with great patience on your part, and prudence on mine, 
I hope, with God's help, to set my arguments before you 
with sufficient clearness, so that you may not regret the time 
and attention you have given here. 

I wish, while the audience is coming in, to reply briefly 
to one point which has been so repeatedly urged by my 
brother ; — I mean his argument from authority. The Scotch 
divines. Dr. Cunningham, and Dr. Chalmers, have been 
frequently mentioned, as having declared themselves against 
modern abolitionism: and because they, who have been 
long and worthily trusted as orthodox divines, have con- 
demned our views, it is presumed that we are in error. He 
relies upon the fact, also, that Dr. Chalmers said that the 
doctrine of modern abolitionists, that slave-holding is a sin, 
is a new doctrine. I shall say somewhat respecting this, 
after I have replied to both these points with distinctness and 
care. 

1. I must ask you to remember, first, that these Scotch 
divines labored under two difficulties in coming to right con- 
clusions as to the duty of American Christians, respecting 
slave-holding. First, that, in Scotland, church-censures in- 
flict certain civil disabilities which do not follow church- 
discipline here. Till a year ago last May. the sheriff, under 
the State authority, was as frequently called upon to enforce 
the decrees of Presbytery, as the Presbytery officers them- 



ON SLAVERY. 221 

selves, as may be seen by the Presbyterian Minutes. An- 
other difficuhy under which the Scotch divines labored, in 
judging of our duty, is, that the civil law interfered with the 
church discipline, in the British Empire. The English law 
of libel is such, that if a churchman, who is a drunkard, 
&c., is accused of it, he may bring his action for libel, and 
the truth could not be pleaded in defence. As long, there- 
fore, as the plaintiff has money, and respectability enough to 
sustain his suit, if you have accused a member of the estab- 
lished church of drunkenness, he can amerce you in dam- 
ao-es. thoufT-h there is no doubt of the truth of vour charsfes. 

This danger from the law of libel, with other like causes, 
embarrasses and weakens the discipline of the European 
churches : and this leads Scotch divines to think it more diffi- 
cult for American churches to discipline slave-holders than 
it actually is. 

But vvhen I shall read the opinions of the Scotch divines, 
they will be found to agree in principle Avith abolitionists, 
though, in practice, they differ. 

I will now read Dr. Cunningham on another subject, 
where human rights are concerned — I mean his opinion as 
to the right and propriety of the people to form " voluntary 
churches^'' such as our American churches, of all denomi- 
nations ; as the "Central Presbyterian Church,'* of which my 
brother Rice is pastor ; and as, excepting perhaps the Romish 
church, we have none but voluntary churches in America, it 
may, perhaps, be interesting to know that Dr. Cunningham, 
my friend's, oft-quoted authority, holds all such churches 
to be iitde better than infidel establishments. Nor is it strange 
that otherwise sound and clear men, who have been raised 
in an established or State church, a church regulated by the 
civil statute and ruled by a house of commons and ministry 
about as pious as our house of representatives, should have 
crude and defective notions of the duty of keeping the church 
communion pure from practical corruptions ; especially when 
these corruptions consist in an invasion of human rights, of 



222 DISCUSSION 

which the structure of the government which they live under 
is a practical contempt. 

I now read Dr. Cunningham's opinion of '• voluniary 
churches,'' from his very abusive reply to Dr. Wardlaw, 
an eminent Congregationalist minister of Edinburgh, in the 
''Church of Scotland Magazine,''^ August, 1835. 

"As Dr. Wardlaw has, on a variety of occasions, manifes- 
ted a want of simplicity and godly sincerity ; and as he has 
displayed considerable dexterity in quibbling and shuflling 
to evade a dilTiculty and get out of a scrape, I must take the 
liberty of warning the public that if he shall be bold enough 
to attempt to prove the truth of his calumny, it Avill not be 
enouo-h for him to show that the friends of the church (of 
which Dr. Cunningham was then a member) have often 
alledged against the voluntaries that they were associated 
infidels in the promotion of a common object ; that from this 
circumstance we have deduced inferences and derived pre- 
sumptions unfavorable to voluntary views, or that they have 
described voluntary principles and measures as having an 
infidel character and tendency. These allegations, it is ad- 
mitted have been very fully and very largely made, and, 
what is more, they have been established^ and no friend of 
the church need be ashamed or afraid of being charged with 
having made them." — \_See article in Church of Scotland 
Magazine, August, 1835, by Rev. W. Cunningham, Edin- 
burgh.'] 

Dr. Cunningham then, in 1835, thinks that he and his 
friends have " established " that " voluntary churches," " prin- 
ciples " and " measures," (Dr. Rice and the Central Presby- 
terian Church of this city of course included; — for that was 
lately formed by a " voluntary "colony, upon " voluntary prin- 
ciples,") " are of infidel character and tendency." Yet this 
same Dr. Cunningham is Dr. Rice's oft-quoted authority in 
this debate, which is upon the sin or innocence of withhold- 
ing this voluntary 'principle from slaves. When my friend 
will settle this charge of infidelity made against his church 
and himself, grounded on their voluntary action, by his fa- 



ON SLA-'/ERY. 2^3 

vorite Dr. Cunningham, it will be time to quote his opinion 
as worth something on The subject of slavery. I consider 
him a good authority in neither. 

So much has been made of Scotch authority in this debate 
concerning American slavery, it may be desirable that I 
should show you the opinion of those Scotch ministers who 
have not breathed from infancy the corrupt atmosphere of a 
State Church. I read from " An address on negro slavery 
to the Christian Churches in the United States of America, by 
the United Associate Synod" of Scotland. This Synod in- 
cludes the greater part of the Presbyterian churches in Scot- 
land, which were out of the pale of the Establishment, pre- 
vious to the great division of May, 1843 ; and the formation 
of the " Free church of Scotland." It has 22 Presbyteries, 
and 350 Congregations. Following is their unanimous ac- 
tion on the subject of American slavery transmitted in the 
pamphlet address which I hold : 

I. " Resolved, That we hold as ' one of those things 
that are most surely believed among us,' that the treating of 
human beings as property, without an express permission of 
him who is the supreme proprietor, is utterly repugnant to 
the principles both of reason and revelation — equally incon- 
sistent with the law of justice and of love — an outrage on 
human nature, and an insult to its author." 

V. ^'Resolvedj That in proportion to the esteem and affec- 
tion with which we regard the christians and the christian 
churches of the United States of America, are the astonish- 
ment and grief with which we have heard, that among the 
members, and even among the office-bearers of some of the 
churches, are to be found proprietors of, and even dealers 
in slaves — that not only individuals but some ecclesiastical 
bodies, have engaged in a shocking, but happily hopeless 
attempt to reconcile these monstrous practices with the law 
of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ." 

Thus, the free unhampered Christianity of Scotland sees 
no moral dilference between being "the proprietor, of 



224 DISCUSSION 

slaves " and '' slave-dealing." It styles both " monstrous prac- 
tices." 

And, now, though the Cunningham and Chalmers 
party, which cast off the State tether and became a " Fuee 
Church of Scoiland^^ only two years ago last May, are not, 
for reasons obvious and already given, the safest and sound- 
est authorities in questions of human rights; especially, 
since but few years are passed since Dr. Chalmers went up 
to London, (where not one of the established churches were 
open to him,) to lecture in favor of State church establish- 
ments, and against the " Voluntary principle." I will read 
the action of the Cunningham and Chalmers Assembly on 
the subject of American slavery. I read from the " Glas- 
gow Examiner" of June 7th, 1845, extracts from the Re- 
port on American slavery read by Dr. Candlish, and adopted 
by the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland," 
last May. 

" There is no question here as to the heinous sin involved 
in the institution of American slavery, nor can there be any 
terms too strong to be employed in pointing out the national 
guilt which attaches to the continuance of that accursed sys- 
tem, and the national judgments which, under the govern- 
ment of a righteous God, may be expected to mark the Di- 
vine displeasure against it. Neither can there be any doubt 
as to the duty incumbent on American christians to exert 
themselves to the utmost in every competent way for having 
it abolished^ 

Farther on, the Assembly say — " All must agree in hold- 
ing, that whatever rights, the civil law of the land may give 
a master over his slaves as ' chattels, personal,' it cannot 
but be a sin of the deepest dye, in him to regard or treat 
them as such : and whosoever commits that sm in any sense, 
or deals otherwise with his fellow man, whatever power the 
law may give him over them, ought to be held disquali- 
fied FOR christian COMIVrUNION." 

This is the doctrine of Dr. Rice's authority. Dr. Cun- 



ON SLAVERY. 225 

ningham after the adoption of this report, arose and expres- 
sed his " entire concurrence" in its sentiments. 

Thus, this same Cunningham, my friend's favorite author- 
ity, holds, that to ^^ regard'' or "treat" men as property, is a 
5in which disqualifies for christian communion; and that 
American Christians are bound to " exert themselves to their 
utmost, in all proper ways, to have slavery abolished!" 
Yet, Dr. Rice is here to prove that " slave-holding is not sin- 
ful, nor the relation between master and slave a sinful rela- 
tion :" and as to zeal for the abolition of slavery, his report 
in his last General Assembly speaks for itself. You can 
all see that whatever inconsistencies Dr. Cunning-ham has 
broached since he was here collecting m.oney for his church 
from slave-holding churches, Dr. Rice is at least as far 
from him, as he is from me, on this subject: but it is not 
my business to reconcile him with his Scotch authorities. 
The abolitionists hold no stronger doctrine than is here 
fully avowed by the Free Church Assembly of last May, 
(1845.) and endorsed by Cunningham himself, to wit: that 
'•'•regarding men as projierty is a sin of the deepest dye^ 
and wliich ought to disqualify for Christian comraunion ;'^ 
and Christians are bound " to exert their utmost for the 
abolition of slaveryP 

I know that my friend seeks to avoid the force of this 
quotation, by making a vain and unmeaning distinction be- 
tween " holding men as slaves and holding them as proper- 
ty;" as though men could hold slaves any other way than 
as property. This distinction might blind persons farther off; 
but if there be twenty slave-holders from Kentucky, I am wil- 
ling to refer the question to them, whether they do not 
hold and regard their slaves as property, and whether they 
do not understand Dr. Rice as justifying their practice from 
the word of God ? Whether, in short, the doctrine of the 
Free Church of Scotland, just read, is not as unacceptable 
to professing slave-holders in the South, as anything which 
abolitionists have ever taught? The fact is, that they ridi- 

15 



<^26 DISCUSSION 

cule the idea of a man holding slaves and not regarding 
them as property. 

Since this subject has been up, a slave-holder present said 
to a friend of mine, that he knew of no slave-holders who 
would thank a man for putting in such a wretched plea, in 
defence of slavery, as that slave-holders do not regard theii 
negroes as property. "We hold our slaves because we 
want them ; and we use them as property because they are 
our property, and we wish to make what money we honestly 
can." Small thanks will Dr. Rice get for such a vindication 
of slave-holding, from his slave-holding brethren, unless they 
take the will for the deed — knowing that, whatever he says, 
he means to support their cause. 

I will now read another testimony that American slave- 
holders ''^regard men as properti/" and so are declared 
worthy of excommunication by my friend's Scotch authori- 
ties. I will first read the testimony proving that professing 
slave-holders do actually hold their slaves as property, and 
because they desire to have their services, and when I have 
read it I will tell you who is the author. 

"The Jews were expressly permitted to buy men; and 
that which I buy with my money, belongs to me for all the 
purposes to which it may be lawfully applied. A man may 
not use his horse as he may a piece of timber ; nor may he 
use his slave as if he were a horse. But if I buy a horse, he 
is mine ; and I may use his services lawfully. Jf I buy a 
man, he is mine, so far as his services are concerned ! " — Rice^s 
Lectures, p. 26. 

This is ^the testimony: and the author sils at that table! 
[Pointing to Dr. Rice.] 

Now, it is true, that he adds, in immediate connection 
with the above quotation, " and I am bound to treat him as 
a man." Yes: but as a "man" who "^5 minei^ whose 
services I may command on the ground that he is mine. If 
this is not " regarding men as property," then that idea can- 
not be put in human speech. But the doctrine of the Free 
Scotch Assembly, and Dr. Cunningham, is, that " regarding 



ON SLAVERY. 227 

men as property is a sin of the deepest dye," and which 
disqualifies for church membership. Thus, the very au- 
thorities which Dr. Rice quotes as on his side, icould turn 
him out of the churchy if he would practice the doctrines 
of his pamphlet ; and they would be consistent with their 
own, for, says Dr. Rice, "i/" / buy a ivian, he is mi?ie!" 

Now, when we consider that Dr. Cunning-ham wrote what 
my friend quotes under most unpropitious circumstances ; — 
that he was born and reared amidst the corruptions of a 
state church, and a " by authority " religion ; — that he is 
now preaching in a tolerated and taxed church, when not 
lecturing his classes ; (for dissenting chapels are licensed in 
England as grog-shops are here.) Environed by such dark- 
ening circumstances, ham.pered in his ideas of church disci- 
pline by the law of libel, and holding men and measures to 
be of infidel character because they form voluntary churches, 
like Dr. Rice's, we may perhaps excuse him for not being 
exactly clear on the subject of slavery. 

Yet in the midst of their distant island location — ^blinded, 
too, by the misrepresentations of our slavery-ridden assemblies 
and high church courts, and tainted leading men, who tell 
them that American slaves are not held as property ; — this 
Scotch church declares, that the man who regards man as 
property ought to be turned out of the church. I have done 
with the Scotch divines. 

Gentlemen and felloto-citlzens : I will here state at large, 
for your satisfaction, and that it may appear in the book, 
why I have not, at my brother's urgent request, so vehemently 
repeated, taken this discussion at once into Bible criticism. 

I have an argument of three hours' length of the kind he 
calls for, which I have prepared with labor and care ; — an 
hour and a half on the Old Testament, and an hour and a 
half upon the New. But I would not present that class of 
arguments at the beginning of this debate ; because I con- 
sider that, the strongest part of my argument, and I wished to 
present the weakest first. Because all my arguments are 
Bible arguments, every principle which I advocate being 



223 DISCUSSION 

found in the word of God. Because, moreover, I felt it my 
duty to God to manage this debate as wisely as I could for 
the truth ; and I therefore did not wish to 'take a solemn prac- 
tical question at first into Greek and Hebrew lexicons, 
grammars, critics, and commentators, one half of whose ideas 
are baked stiff in the oven of German hermeneutics. Before 
letting in what light may be had from these sources, (and a 
just use of them yields much.) I have thought proper to ar- 
gue the question of slavery, for a time, as it is, a solemn 
matter of fact, and upon the broad principle of common equity 
and common sense. 

And the event has proved the wisdom and necessity of 
my course. You have seen that the real point of dispute is, 
whether slave-holding be this or that. 'Prove,' he says, 
' that slavery includes these cruelties — the prohibition to read 
— the complete power of the master, etc., etc., and I will be 
an abolitionist.' Here has been his main labor — to deny 
that certain things belong necessarily to slavery. Was not 
my long discussion to show what slavery is, therefore, neces- 
sary? Besides, one well prepared argument upon the Scrip- 
tures is enough ; and I take no advantage in putting it off to 
the last. He has the closing speech at every session, and 
the benefit, if there be any, of a last impression. I am wil- 
ling he should. He will, therefore, have full opportunity of 
presenting what he may have to say upon the teachings of 
Scripture. 

I have said that I felt bound to conduct this debate wisely 
for the cause of truth, and I am not unacquainted with the 
course commonly taken by the defenders of slavery. Shun- 
ning all clear ideas of slavery, they are accustomed to dip the 
people at once into the Mosaic institution, and haggle their 
minds with " doulos^^ and " ehedh^^ and •' kaunah" etc., etc. 
It was thus that Dr. Junkin, in the synodical debate in the 
first Presbyterian church in this city, last fall-, Junlcinized the 
minds of the people for two whole days ; and when he had 
done, I do not believe that the heads of his auditors contained 
two substantial ideas on the topics which he handled. 



ON SLAVERY. 229 

Now I determined not to let my brother take this course. 
I resolved, before giving him an opportunity to display his 
learning, to give you a chance to judge of his candor and 
sense. I desired that the public should know; I myself 
wished to know, to what class of minds my brother belongs. 
This is a legitimate object sought in a proper way. He is 
active, unwearied in the propagation of his opinions, and it 
is material that we know what weight we ought to attach to 
them, as coming from him. 

I have, within these few years past, met a class of men, 
whom the late ecclesiastical agitations in this country and in 
Europe have thrown up into notice — of whom, I think, it 
may justly be said, that the world were better if the species 
were extinct: having few original ideas of their own, they are 
great gatherers and retailers of the ideas of others ; men of 
fourth or fifth rate minds, who, being of narrow intellect, and 
stimulated by a large ambition, seek, by sectarian services, 
to wind their way up to the to'p of some old ecclesiastical 
organization, founded by the piety of a former age, to reign 
amid the moral owls and bats that peer and chicker amid 
the twilight of its tower. 

When slavery is the subject, I have never known a man 
of this class willing to meet and discuss it, as it actually 
exists, upon the ordinary and well-known principles of right 
and wrong. Instead of this, they dive into the dusky re- 
gions of antiquity, like rats into cellars, and, guided to des- 
potism by an instinct as precise as that which guides that 
animal to cheese, they pick up all the instances of re- 
striction upon human liberty which belonged to dark and 
despotic ages, and twist them into a snake-coil of argument 
to bind down American Christianity to the toleration of 
slavery in an age of liberty and light. Slaves themselves, in 
heart, to authority, as are all caterers to despotism, they are 
great for lexicons, and profound in commentators ; classes of 
writers, who, from the number of topics which they treaty 
must necessarily take the most they write upon trust from 
other men ; and they never scruple to weigh the opinion 



230 DISCUSSION 

of " Doctor This," and " Doctor That," against the clearest 
elements of equity, and the plainest principles of justice ! 

I do not say that brother Rice belongs to this class of 
minds. I would not bring a railing accusation against Sa- 
tan, much less against my brother. But I wished, for the 
cause of righteousness, that the public should know, and to 
know myself, whether he was or was not of this sort and 
grade of men ; and I knew that if he was, if I took him 
out of the beaten track of pro-slavery argument he would be 
utterly at loss what to do. Whether this has been true of 
him, thus far, I do not say. The book which we make will 
show. I have now done with this matter.. If he twits me 
hereafter with being unable to argue with him, he shall 
have what benefit that course will bring him. I shall go 
straight forward with my work. 

U I wish now to reply to the remark quoted from Dr. 
Chalmers, that the doctrine of abolitionists is a dogma of 
recent date ; and to show, if I am able, that the truth, that 
slave-holding is sin, has b'een struggling with the mind and 
conscience of the church ever since the time of Christ and the 
apostles. I have cited to you the fact, that Ignatius wrote 
to Polycarp, in the year 107, not to appropriate the church 
money for buying those slaves of heathen masters, who were 
converted to Christianity from heathenism. The reason of 
Ignatius's advice is obvious, viz : that if the church bought 
the freedom of all the slaves who^ entered it from heathen- 
ism, it might tempt the servile population to spurious con- 
versions, as they would join the church for the sake of 
gaining their freedom. But the fact proves this, that the 
churches founded by the apostles were far from being slave- 
holding churches, that the slaves who joined them were im- 
portuning the members to club the church money and buy 
their freedom. 

. No proof is needed to show that the owners of these 
slaves were not church-members. The idea of a whole 
church giving the money of the whole, to buy the bodies of 



ON SLAVERY. 231 

one part of its members called slaves, fi'om another part 
called masters, is too absurd for even slaves to ask. 

I now resume my argument, (which was suspended at 
this point several meetings since,) to prove, that, whenever 
slavery has been abolished without blood, the doctrine that 
slave-holding is shi has abolished it ; that therefore Dr. 
Chalmers is mistaken ; and as this doctrine yields the fruits 
of truth, by destroying slavery, it is therefore true thai slave- 
holding is sin. 

I must now take you through a little history, and but a 
little ; as the notices of slavery in early church history are 
not extensive. We find in Giesler, that, about A. D. 316, 
Constantino ratified the manumissions of the church, and 
empowered those thus emancipated to take property by will, 
; These two items of history do not show that the Chris- 
tian church in the years 107 and 316, understood the doc- 
trine of abolition precisely as now taught. But the first 
shows that the churches of the Apostles were non-slave- 
holding churches, and the second, that, in the day of Con- 
stantine, the church was forcing emancipation upon the State. 
For Constantino ratified church manumissions to make him- 
self popular with the Christian party. Whereas, at this 
time churches and ministers in the South, take the lead of 
the State in vindicating the principle of slavery. Leaving the 
age of Constantino and coming down through a period of 
300 years, we find what doctrines and sentiments prevailed in 
the church respecting slavery, that is, upon what theori/ their 
practice of church-manumission was based. I read from 
Robertson^ s Charles F., p. 24, Note 20. > 

"When Pope Gregory the Great, who flourished toward 
the end of the sixth century, granted liberty to some of his 
slaves, he gives this reason for it : — 

" ' Cum Reclempfor noster^ totius conditor naturae, ad hoc 
propitiatus, humanam carnem voluerit assumere, ut divine 
itatis suae gratia^ dirempto (quo tenehamur captivi) vinculo^ 
pristinae nos restitueret libertati ; saluhriter agitur, si homi- 
nesj quos ab initio liberos natura protulit^ et jus gentium 



232 DISCUSSION 

jugo substituit seriutis, in ca, qua 7iati fuerant, manu- 
mittcndis bencfccio, lihcrtati rcdclantur.^ " 

Which I thus translate : — ' Since our Redeemer, the buil- 
der of all nature, set apart for this, has voluntarily assumed 
human flesh, that, by favor of his divinity, (the chain by 
which we were bound being broken,) he might restore us to 
our pristine liberty ; it is a wholesome act, (salubriter agitur,) 
if men, produced by nature free at first, but subjected to the 
yoke of slavery, by the law of nations, may be restored, by 
act of the emancipator, to that liberty in which they were 
born.' 

This document bases the duty of freeing slaves upon the 
atonement itself, the center and sum of all Christian doctrine ; 
and practically, and almost in terms, declares that Christians 
ought to free their slaves, because Christ came to free them : 
and it distinctly declares the great doctrine from which the 
duty of immediate abolition flows, that " men are born freA r* 

Now considering that this man was a Pope, a human head 
of the church, and like other human heads, probably borne 
along by the body ; it is fair to suppose he rather represent- 
ed than led the anti-slavery opinion of the church in his day ; 
in short that he was pressed to what he did by the truth 
which prevailed among the membership. It surely would 
be a rare occurrence — one which has never yet happened, to 
see a single Pope setting himself against ihe opinions of both 
church and world. I say therefore, that this act of eman- 
cipation by Pope Gregory the Great, based on abolition prin- 
ciples, not obscurely expressed, shows that the gospel of 
Christ was a battering-ram before which slavery instantly 
gave way wherever it came, and that the sentiment that 
slave-holding is sin. Dr. Chalmers to the contrary not- 
withstanding, is as old as the church of Christ. I do not 
say or suppose that this gospel duty of manumission, at that 
day was perfectly practiced, or that those Christians were 
abolitionists in the exact modern sense. But I aver that 
slavery was abolished by the sentiment, then in the church, 
tliat slave-holding is sin, and by nothing else. 



ON SLAVERY. 233 

From Gregory's time (6th century) to that of Louis X., 
A. D. 1315, the deeds of mamimission clearly recognize the 
abolition doctrine that slave-holding is sin. 

" A g-reater part of the charters of manumission previous 
to the reign of Louis X.," says Robertson, [note 20 to page 
24,) " were granted, ^Pro amore Dei ; pro remedio ardmce ; 
pro mcrcede animce, et pro iimore omnipotentis Dei:'' " that 
is — " for the love of God," "for the remedy of the soul," " for 
the consideration of the soul," and f'for the fear of the om- 
nipotent God," etc. Nov/, the distance between freeing 
slaves for the soul's salvation, and freeing them to escape its 
damnation, is not so great but quickened consciences would 
soon travel it. Certainly, these deeds of manumission, 
every time one was issued or read in Church, (and great 
numbers are on record.) must inevitably and instantly have 
forced the inference upon the minds of Christians, that 
slave-holding was against " the fear of God, and the salva- 
tion of the soul." And they show most clearly that the 
operative principle which impelled to emancipation was the 
truth, which is now stated, in simple language, viz : " that 
holding slaves is sinP 

" These deeds, freeing slaves for the "fear of God," etc., run 
down to the time of Philip the Long, and Louis X., A. D. 
1315, and 1318, when, we read in Robertson, "the enfran- 
chisement of slaves became more frequent." These two 
monarchs then issued ordinances, declaring, that, "^5 all 
men were hy nature free horn^ and as their kingdom was 
called the Kingdom of Franks, they determined that it should 
be so in reality as well as in name ; therefore they appointed 
that enfranchisements should be granted throughout the 
whole kingdom, upon just and reasonable conditions. These 
edicts were carried into dimediate execution within the 
royal domain. And servitude was gradually abolished in 
ahiiost every province of the kingdom." 

Thus, the self-interest of the world completed, what, in 
the Church, the fear of God began. The sentiment among 
Christians, that slave-holding was contrary to religion, first 



234 DISCUSSION 

produced emancipations, and proved them "beneficial ; and 
the ordinance of these two monarchs with the example of 
immediate emancipation on the royai estates, completed the 
overthrow of slavery in what is now France. 

The abolition of slavery in Britain followed soon after, 
the particulars of which, says Robertson, " are found in the 
charter granted Habitatoribus Mo7itis Briio?iis, A. D. 1376." 

Before this time, children \vere sold into Ireland, at a 
regular market in Liverpool : and Henr}^, as quoted by Pitt, 
says, that "great multitudes were shipped from the British 
coast, and were to be seen exposed, like cattle, for sale in the 
Romish market." This charter of British abolition, in 1376, 
is an immediate abolition charter. " 1. The right of disposing 
of their [slaves'] persons by sale or grant was relinquished. 
2. Power was given them of conveying their effects by will, 
or any other legal deed. 3. Their services and taxes to their 
liege lord are precisely ascertained. 4. And they are allow- 
ed the privilege of marrying, according to their inclination." 
That is, they ceased to be instruments in the hands of their 
masters, and became men under a government of law. 

A system of villeinage, however, continued in England 
near two hundred years after this, to the times of Henry 
VIII. ; which, though not slaver}'-, was yet grinding oppres- 
sion. Villeinage, therefore, like slavery, was abolished by 
the conviction of its sinfulness. I read the interesting and 
instructive account of its abolition from Coopei-^s Justinian^ 
p. 414: notes. 

" Sir Thomas Smith, who was secretary of state to Ed- 
ward VI., and then to Elizabeth, observes that he never 
knew any villeins in gross in his time ; and that villeins 
appendant to manors (villeins regardant) were but very 
few in number ; that since England had received the ' 
Christian religion^ men began to be affected in their con- 
sciences at holding their brethren in servitude.^'' (Dr. 
Rice's religion teaches that slave-holding is not sinful.) 
"And that upon this scruple, in process of time, the holy 
fathers, monks, and friars so burthened the minds of those 



ON SLAVEPvY. 235 

whom they confessed, that temporal men were glad to man- 
umit all their villeins. But," he adds, " the holy fathers 
themselves did not manumit their own slaves^ and the bish- 
ops behaved like the other ecclesiastics. But, at last^ some 
bishops enfranchised their villeins for money, and others on 
account of popular outcry: and at length the monasteries 
falling into lay hands were the occasion that almost all the 
villeins in the kingdom were manumitted." 

The same things which were enacted in England, at the 
abolition of villeinage, are, in principle, now being enacted 
in this country. The religious teachers of the day instruct- 
ed the people in Christianity, and made them see that slave- 
holding and villeinage were inconsistent with it. But the 
priests, trusting in the reverence of the people for their reli- 
gious character, would not submit to a practical application 
of their own principles, till compelled to it by a public senti- 
ment, the reflection of their own teachings, rising from the 
people. " And the bishops behaved like the other ecclesi- 
astics." A year or more since, a man from this city travel- 
ling down the Ohio, said the boat took on board the Right 
Reverend Bishop Polk, of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 
and brother, I believe, of our worthy President of the 
United States, with his sixty slaves, whom he was taking to 
his plantation. "A few miles below," said my informant, 
♦' a swine-merchant came a-board, with a large drove of 
hogs." And in legal and social condition, the slave-gang 
of this " Holy Bishop" were precisely on an equal footing 
with that herd of swine ; and both sustained the same prop- 
erty relation to their masters. 

As to the question, whether any teachers of religion, at 
the present day, are driven by public opinion to act against 
slavery, it is most humiliating to reflect on what would be 
the course of our General Assemblies, and General Confer- 
ences, on the subject of slavery, if no petitions had gone, or 
should hereafter go up from the people to them on that sub- 
ject. The monks, friars, and bishops of England freed their 
bondmen under the same pressure that has, in our day, pro- 



236 DISCUSSION 

cured the reading of anti-slavery notices, viz: *^ popular 
outcry. ^^ But the main-spring, which kept the whole of the 
machinery of emancipation in movement was the convic- 
tion, seated in the conscience of the nation, that slave-hold- 
ing was sinful. 

I now call your attention to the abolition of slavery in the 
British West Indies. 

Opposition to West Indian Slavery, was formally com- 
menced by Granville Sharpe, in the year 1772, and the first 
fruit of his labors was the decision obtained in that year, by 
the English Bench, that slaves became free by setting foot 
upon English soil. This was the celebrated case of the ne- 
gro Somersett. Peckard, Benezet, Gregoire, and others, had 
already written against the enslavement of the Africans, 
which, till now, was pursued as a lawful christian calling. 
In 1785, Dr. Peckard, vice-chancellor of Cambridge Uni- 
versity, gave to the Senior Bachelors, as a subject for a Latin 
dissertation, the question, " Is it right to make slaves of 
others against their will?''' Thomas Clarkson obtained the 
prize upon this thesis, and the investigation of his subject 
so wrought upon his mind, that he devoted his life to the 
destruction of slavery. A committee was soon organized, of 
which Granville Sharpe was chairman, which for a time la- 
bored alike against slavery and the slave trade. But they 
afterwards thought it would be wiser to drop direct opposi- 
tion to slavery, and oppose the slave-trade alone, as the most 
obnoxious of the two, and easiest suppressed. They were 
induced to this course by two considerations, — the great 
strength and endless ramifications of the slavery interest m 
England; and the idea that the slave-trade, once abolished, 
slavery would speedily die, as a stream when its fountain is 
stopped. That was a great error. When the Abbe Gre- 
goire heard of it, he wrote to the British abolitionists : " hi 
your late chaiige of policy^ 1 hear the groans^ and see the 
falling tears of coming millions.'^ This prophecy has been 
verified. 
^ The slave-trade was abolished in England, under the 



ON SLAVERY. 237 

Grenville administration, in 1807 ; from which time the 
British philanthropists took up opposition to slavery itself. 
But they labored for years under the incubus notion of grad- 
ual emancipation. They had not yet learned the truth of 
the proverb — " Give the sinner to-day^ and he and the devil 
will take care of to-morroio.^^ 

I majr as well stop here to say, there is nothing, there can 
be nothing but immediateism in morals. You have no right 
to tell a man he is sinning, and that it is his duty to repent 
next week. The only command which God ever gave to 
men involved in wrong practices, is in the present tense — 
" Cease to do Evil;^^ and whoever holds another language 
grants indulgence to sin. But while this is the only correct 
theory of reformation ; in practice, the law always allows 
" a reasonable time" for change. If slave-holders were now 
preparing to emancipate their slaves in six weeks or two 
months, and would actually do so, would not that be " imme- 
diate emancipation ?•' The slavery ceases when the emanci- 
pation is honestly and effectually begun. 

My first public lecture against slavery, was delivered while 
I was a student. It was in the little town of Haddonfield, 
New Jersey ; where I met, after the mob, a thing of course 
at that day, a New Jersey farmer and explained to him our 
doctrine of " Immediate Abolition." I urged that slave- 
holding is sin — ^because slavery repeals and resists the laws 
by which God has regulated human society : that it is a re- 
peal of the marriage relation. That it is not the taking 
apart a man and his wife that makes the separation. The 
Atlantic ocean has rolled between me and my wife, but I 
thanked God that I had a wife then. It is not distance which 
parts man and wife in the slave system, but slavery. They 
could remain married while an ocean is between them, but 
they cannot be married while they are slaves. 

I showed him that slavery forbids the required promises 
of parents to instruct their children to read the Word of God, 
and thus virtually forbids infant baptism itself That by the 



238 DISCUSSION. 

law of several States, it is a punishable crime in parents to 
teach their children to read the name of God. 

When the old man (for he was a parent himself) began to 
see that my doctrine was truth, one present said: " Oh ! but 
it will never do to free them all at once ! " The farmer re- 
plied, " I don't see any particular danger of that ; but we all 
say the thing must be brought to an end ; and though a man 
has his knife on the grindstone and another at the crank, it 
never begins to sharpen till he begins to turn. If we are 
ever to get rid of slavery, I think its time to begin to turn." 

But I return to the British abolitionists. Their teaching 
of gradual emancipation not being founded in truth, influ- 
enced conscience little or none, and produced no emancipa- 
tion. But about the year 1824, a change occurred in their 
teaching, and a corresponding change in their tone. They 
still taught the same principle, that slave-holding is sin, but 
they varied their application of it, and demanded immediate 
repentance. A pamphlet issued from the press this year, 
written by Elizabeth Heyrick, of Leicester, entitled " Imme- 
diate not Gradual Abolition^^ which expressed, and perhaps 
helped to mould the anti-slavery movement into the form, and 
possibly gave it the name, of" immediate abolition^ 

The result of this agitation you all know. On the 3 1st day 
of July, 1834, at midnight, 800,000 human beings kneh down 
slaves, when the clock began to strike twelve, (if brother 
Rice had been there, he would have struck the hour of the 
debate,) [a laugh] and when the clock ceased striking, arose 
up men. 

? There is no doubt upon what principles the British eman- 
cipation was brought about ; that it was the principle that 
slave-holding is sin, and immediate abolition a duty. Prin- 
ciples urged and carried forward by abolitionists, almost all 
of whom are still living, as Clarkson, Sturge, Buxton, 
Thompson, Scoble, Scales, and their coadjutors, with whose 
minds and hearts modern abolitionism may almost be said 
to have originated, and from whose operations, perhaps, de- 
rived its name. 



ON SLAVERY, 239 

I will read the record of the event, which took place in 
the West Indies, at midnight, August 1, 1834, from Kim- 
hall & Thome's '^Emancipation in the West Indies^' p. 144: 
" The Wesleyans kept 'watch-night' in all their chapels 
on the night of the 31st July. One of the Wesleyan mis- 
donaries gave us an account of the watch-meeting at the 
chapel in St. Johns. The spacious house was filled with 
the candidates for liberty. All was animation and eagerness. 
A mighty chorus of voices swelled the song of expectation 
and joy, and as they united in prayer, the voice of the leader 
was drowned in the universal acclamations of thanksgiving 
and praise, and blessing, and honor, and glory to God, who 
had come down for their deliverance. In such exercises, 
the evening was spent, until the hour of twelve approached. 
The missionary then proposed, that when the clock on the 
Cathedral should begin to strike, the whole congregation 
should fall upon their knees, and receive the boon of free- 
dom in silence. Accordingly, as the loud bell tolled its first 
note, the crowded assembly prostrated themselves on their 
knees. All was silence, save the quivering, half-stifled breath 
of the struggling spirit. The slow notes of the clock fell 
upon the multitude ; peal on peal, peal on peal, rolled over 
the prostrate throng, in tones of angels' voices, thrilhng 
among the desolate chords and weary heart-strings. Scarce 
had the clock sounded its last note, when the lightning 
flashed vividly around, and a loud peal of thunder roared 
along the sky— God's pillar of fire, and his trump of Jubilee ! 
A moment of profoundest silence passed — then came the 
hurst. They broke forth in prayer; they shouted; they 
sang, glory, alleluia ; they clapped their hands, leaped up, 
fell down, clasped each other in their free arms, cried, 
laughed, and went to and fro, tossing upward their unfettered 
arms. But, high above the whole, there was a mighty sound, 
which ever and anon swelled, — it was the utterings, in 
broken negro dialect, of gratitude to God." 

This is the doctrine^ and this the practice, of immedi- 
ate abolitionism— principles which shall soread until the 



240 DISCUSSION 

whole ecrth shall acknowledge their influence ; " truth shull 
spring out of the earth, and righteousness shall look down 
from heaven." And that prophetic song of the Bethlehem 
angels shall be realized in history, " Glory to God in the 
highest ; on earth peace, and good will toward man." 

Before this emancipation took place, all evil auguries were 
rife respecting the results ; hut, so far, only good has re* 
suited. By thousands, the poor creatures flocked to the 
churches to he joined in marriage ; no white man has been 
injured ; no sheriff or constable has been resisted in execut- 
ing the laws, and no complaints of the working of this 
fc^mancipation has yet been heard, except from a few, who 
weigh sugar and tobacco and coffee against the inalienable 
rights of immortal man. [Time expired. 



[MR. rice's ninth SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen Moderators^ and Fellow Citizens: 

I shall have something, presently, to say, which will great- 
ly change the aspect of things in relation to West India 
emancipation. I have facts to adduce which will shew that 
it is not to modern abolition, or abolitionists, that that eman- 
cipation is to be attributed. 

My friend thinks the views of Dr. Cunningham and Dr. 
Chalmers, are entitled to no weight or consideration in this 
discussion, because, until very recently, they were opposed 
to free churches ! Truly, he puts forth singular logic, the 
amount of which is, that no man who is wrong on one 
pointy can possibly be right on any other ! Yet, in a few 
moments after urging this objection, he, himself, appealed to 
the opinion of Pope Gregory ! He objects to any reference 
to the opinions or testimony of such divines as Cunningham 
and Chalmers, yet immediately contends that the opinions 
of the " Man of Sin," (who was also a political despot,) in 
the sixth century, are worth a great deal ! If he quotes 
Pope Gregory, I think he should not, for shame's sake, object 



DISCUSSION 

to my quoting Drs. Cunningham and Chalmers, two of the 
best and most distinguished men of our own day. 

How, I ask, does a man's being in favor of a church es- 
tablishment, hinder him from seeing the evils of slavery? 
What is there, in his notions of church government, to blind 
his eyes on this question ? How is the logic of a man who 
is wrong on the subject of ecclesiastical establishments, 
necessarily bad on the subject of slave-holding? I should 
like to hear the process by which the gentleman has reached 
this conclusion. 

But when Dr. Chalmers states matters of fact, is he not 
to be trusted ? He is a wise man, and a man of veracity. 
Shall we not, then, hear and candidly weigh his testimony 
concerning an important matter of fact ? Now, what does he 
say, touching the history of abolitionism ? In his letter on 
this subject, recently published, he says : 

" But again, not only is there a wrong principle involved 
in the demand which these abolitionists now make on the 
Free Church of Scotland : it is in itself a wrong procedure 
for hastening forward that object, for the accomplishment of 
which we are alike desirous with themselves ; or, in other 
words, it is not only wrong in principle, but hurtful in effect. 
Should Ave concede to their demands, then, speaking in the 
terms of our opinion, we incur the discredit (and in propor- 
tion to that discredit we damage our usefulness as a church, 
of having given in — and that at the bidding of another party 
— to a factitious and new principle, which not only wants, 
but which is contrary to the authority of Scripture and Apos- 
tolic example, and, indeed, has only been heard of in Christen- 
dom within these few years ; as if gotten up for an occasion, 
instead of being drawn from the repositories of that truth 
which is immutable and eternal — even the principle, that no 
slave-holder should be admitted to a participation in the sac- 
raments." 

Now, if slave-holding is in itself a heinous sin — a gross 
violation of the law of God, as abolitionists affirm, the Scrip- 
tures must clearly condemn it, and clearly teach the doctrine 



242 DISCUSSION 

advocated by them. And if the Scriptures do so teach, 
surely it is to be supposed, that wise and good men, at least 
many of them, have so understood them. Now, Chalmers 
asserts not only that, in his opinion, the principles of the 
abolitionists are false; but- he states it as a /<zc^, that they are 
new^ and such as have " only been heard of in Christendom 
toithin these feio years, as if gotten up for an occasion, in- 
stead of being drawn from the repositories of that truth 
which is immutable and eternal." It is true, Dr. Chalmers 
has been in favor of church establishments ; but, it is also 
true, that he is most decidedly and strongly opposed to slav- 
ery ; and, therefore, however blinded by his prejudices on 
the former subject, he is just the man who would be likely 
to see the truth on the latter. On this his eyes were not 
blinded by pro-slavery prejudices. At any rate, he is cer- 
tainly capable of testifying to a historical fact, such as he 
states. These remarks apply with equal force to Dr. Cun- 
ningham. The United Associate Synod of Scotland, the 
gentleman says, expressed themselves as amaeed and grieved 
to ascertain that ministers of the gospel, and officers in the 
church in America, held slaves. Well, their amazement 
only proves how little they had examined the subject of 
which they wrote ; for, as learned men, they might have 
known, that such has been the fact ever since our church 
was organized ; that the same is true of almost every church 
in the world, not only in modern, but ancient times. 

But the gentleman quotes the report of the Free Church 
of Scotland, which he says, was approved by Drs. Chalmers 
and Cunningham, as if it condemned the doctrine of the 
last General Assembly of our church on this subject. So it 
appears, they can see, at last. The gentleman first tells us, 
that Dr. Cunningham and Dr. Chalmers, are blind on the 
subject of slavery ; and then he insists, and attempts to 
prove, that they are both abolitionists ! [Laughter.] When 
he commenced his speech, it seems, he did not think they 
were abolitionists, but before the end of the same speech, ha 
is convinced that they are ! Well, what ^does the report of 



ON SLAVERY. 243 

the Free Churcli say on the subject ? It says that it is a sin 
to reg-ard and treat slaves " as mere chattels personal^ This, 
Mr. B. thinks, is contrary to the sentiments expressed in the 
report of our General Assembly. I will take the liberty of 
reading to the gentleman a sentence or two from that report, 
which, indeed, he seems never to have read at all. 

" Nor is this Assembly to be understood as countenancing 
the idea, that masters may regard their servants as mere prop- 
erty, and not as human beings, rational, accountable, immor- 
tal. The Scriptures prescribe not only the duty of servants, 
but of masters also, warning the latter to discharge those du- 
ties, ' knowing that their master is in heaven, neither is there 
respect of persons with him.' " 

Does not this report represent it as a sin to'regard slaves as 
'■'•mtrepropertyV Does it not teach, that masters are bound 
to regard and treat them " as rational, accountable and immor- 
tal beings ?" Our report and theirs thus agree perfectly in 
sentiment : and yet Mr. B. holds them up as diametrically 
opposite to each other ! 

But he says, this doctrine is hateful at the South ; for those 
men hold slaves merely as property. I am not here to 
please the North or the South, the East or the West. It is 
my duty to advocate and defend Bible doctrine because it is 
Bible doctrine, and not to please either North or South. If 
it be true that southern slave-holders do not love our doctrine ; 
then, surely, it is not " pro-slavery," as the abolitionists 
assert that it is ; else they would like it. Last night my 
friend told us the South were well pleased with our doctrine ; 
but, now he says, the South cannot endure it. Here is a 
flat contradiction. Which of his contradictory assertions are 
we to believe? He says, that slave-holders must and do 
regard their slaves as property : aye, but do they regard them 
simply as property ? — as " mere chattels personal ?" Cer- 
tainly Christian masters do not ; and this is precisely what 
both the Scotch report and ours condemn. 
' But let us hear the opinion of Dr. Cunnmgham as to the 
character of slave-holding as it exists amongst Christians in 



244 . DISCUSSION 

these United States. He visited the slave-holding States ; 
and his testimony is that of an eminently wise and good man 
who first examined for himself, and not of one who sees 
slavery only as it is caricatured in the books and speeches 
of abolitionists. When he returned to Scotland, he found 
the abolitionists urging the church in Scotland to hold no 
communion with the Presbyterian church in America, un- 
less the latter would agree forthwith to exclude from her 
communion all slave-holders. In a reply to their speeches 
in Presbytery he thus remarks : 

" We have to do with the churches. It is important to 
view this question in relation to the churches, just because 
there are churches of Christ, in that country. It is abso- 
lutely necessary to examine this question with candor and 
fairness, that we may seek to realize the fact, that there are 
churches of Christ, which, in regard to all matters, except 
slavery, are just as well entitled to be regarded as respecta- 
ble, useful, honored churches of Christ, as the evangelical 
churches here ; and numbers of ministers, the most of them 
just as fairly entitled to be regarded as ministers of Christ, 
living under the power of the truth, laboring faithfully, and 
serving God in the Gospel of his Son. And whatever mo- 
tives abolitionists and other slanderers may ascribe to me, I 
believe myself, if my views and feelings are in any way 
different from those obtaining among my brethren, it arises 
from this, that I realize more distinctly the character of these 
men and churches. I know something of them from per- 
sonal intercourse ; and therefore I feel myself constrained, 
in common fairness, to begin the investigation of the ques- 
tion with the assured conviction, that as a whole, they are just 
as well entitled to be regarded as Christian men, ministers and 
churches discharging their duty to Christ, and honored by 
Him, as any, generally speaking, in this country. The 
ground taken on the other side comes to this, that whatever 
appearance of pietj'-, worth, and excellence the churches may 
possess, their conduct and views in regard to slavery deprive 
them of all right to this character. Many slur over the 



ON SLAVERY. 245 

thing" in this way ; and according- to the general purport of 
of Mr. Grey's speech, you would come to this conclusion. 
I expected to hear more discussion of the scriptural princi- 
ples which are ordinarily brought to bear on the settlement 
of this question. Practically and substantially, the contro- 
\^ersy virtually lies there ; and the point on which the decis- 
wn will mainly hinge is this — Is the Church of Christ 
bound, as a matter of imperative duty, to exclude every man, 
who stands in the relation of a master to a slave, from office 
and ordinances in the Church of Christ ? There occurs here 
the obvious and undoubted foct, that the Apostles admitted 
them to office and ordinances, and I hold this upon this 
ground, that in a question somewhat analogous, the Apostles 
made monogamy a qualification for office ; a precept which 
clearly establishes, — 1. That monogamy was not then a 
qualification for ordinances in the church. 2. That non- 
slave-holding was not a qualification for office. Slave-hold- 
ers were members and ministers of the Church in the apos- 
tolic times ; and it is somewhat strange, that in the discus- 
sion of a question turning mainly on that point, we should 
not have one single syllable on the conduct of the churches 
then. It is said, however, that slavery is a sin, therefore 
every slave-holder is a great sinner, and ought to be treated 
as the abolitionists do, as thieves and robbers, and at once 
expelled. Even if one were to concede that slavery is a 
sin, it would not follow that every slave-holder ought to be 
excluded from the Christian Church, because the conduct 
of the Apostles proves that that is not a general or universal 
law. And whatever view you take as to the sinfulness of 
slavery, you must thread your way through the conduct of 
the apostolic churches. If slavery is a sin in such a sense, 
as that every slave-holder is a sinner, and ought to be ex- 
pelled, you are landed in this principle, that, under the au- 
thority of the Apostles, the churches connived at slavery — 
at sin — because of the peculiarity of their position — because 
of the difficulties of their situation. If not on this ground, 
then you must admit that slavery is not a sin, or not in such 



24G DISCUSSION 

a sense as that every man connected with it is to be counted 
as a heinous sinner. I have no doubt as to which aUerna- 
tive we ought to take. Slavery, as a system, is sinful, incon- 
sistent with the ordinary rights of man — the moral bearing 
and general spirit of the Word of God — and injurious to 
the interests of religion ; but there are some difficulties which 
must be disposed of A man may lean either to the side of 
denying that, and adduce the conduct of the Apostle.?, or 
admit all that, and endeavor to explain the conduct of the 
Apostles, in consistency with the admission of that great 
truth, as to the character of slavery. The Apostles' con- 
duct may be explained in consistency with the general posi- 
tion I hold as to slavery, but I cannot see how it can be re- 
conciled with one which slipped in as if it were identical, that 
slavery is a sin in such a sense that every man who stands 
in the relation of a master to a slave is thereby guilty of a 
great and heinous sin, just as a man guihy of robbery and 
murder, and ought to be denounced and treated as such." 

" We may imagine in this country that a man need not be 
a slave-holder unless he pleases ; but this is gross ignorance. 
If a man takes his slaves to the door, and says, ' You may 
go about your business, you are free men,' they would be 
instantly seized, and sold for the benefit of the State. There 
are possibilities of emancipation, but that is the law. The 
way they are legally emancipated is, that the slaves must be 
expelled from the State altogether, and. in addition to that, he 
must give positive security for the maintainance of these 
slaves all their days, which is a virtual prohibition of man- 
umission. There are hundreds of slave-holders who would 
give their slaves liberty to-morrow, if the law of the land 
would allow it. These laws indicate the condition in which 
the churches are placed, and we should make use of them 
first for increasing our horror of the system, and then to re- 
alize the true state of these churches in the difficulties with 
which they have to contend. A man may be placed in such 
a condition, as that the only act of humanity he can discharge 
is just to buy a man, and make him his slave. He acquires 



ON SLA\TErvY. 



247 



a legal right to him, and may do injury according to the 
law ; but this does not follow. In general, men of Chris- 
tian feeling are desirous to avoid standing in the relation of 
masters to slaves as far as they can, though their feeling is 
not so strong as it ought to be. In many parts of the slave 
States they have just this alternative, either to become the 
proprietor of two or three slaves, or be destitute of every 
thing in the shape of domestic servants. In some of the 
northern States they have to contend with the absolute im- 
possibility of getting any person for a servant except an Irish 
Papist. Ministers have told me that this was literally the 
case. Many of us would think that to bring an Irish Pa- 
pist into our family was something like a sin ; yet there it is 
rendered a matter of necessity. In the southern States slave- 
holding is matter of necessity, because there is no other way 
of getting domestic servants. Though Christian men pre- 
fer hiring slaves, the property of another, they cannot always 
do it. A minister who lived in a slave State made it his bu- 
siness not to acquire property in slaves, but to hire them: 
He lived in a town where that could be easily done. One 
woman he hired. Her owner's circumstances became em- 
barrassed. * This woman came to her master, not. her owner, 
and told him she had reason to think she would be sold, and 
besought him to buy her. He replied he did not wish to 
buy sFaves. The woman, who was a religious person, took 
it so much to heart, that she could not do her work, nor take 
any meat, lying about her kitchen crying and howling, till 
at last he was obliged to borrow money and buy this woman, 
as the only way in which he could really perform an act of 
humanity towards her. An anti-slavery gentleman in one of 
the northern States, who succeeded by inheritance to a plan- 
tation and a number of slaves in the south, shuddered at the 
idea, and wrote down there to tell them that they must dis- 
pose of the slaves, for that he would not become their mas- 
ter. They wrote back telling him what were the conditions, 
that he must not only give bond for their support all their 
days, but expel them from that State, and that otherwise they 



248 DISCUSSION 

must be sold for the benefit of the State. He came to this 
conclusion, that since he could not get quit of the duty, he 
would just give up his business, and go down to reside on 
the plantation, and labor it with these slaves ; and there he 
is, I believe, at this moment, the owner of a considerable 
number of slaves, just as fully discharging the duties of a 
Christian man and a ' believing master,' as it is possible for 
any man to do." 

Here is his testimony, given in view of what he saw of 
slavery, as existing among the Presbyterians of the southern 
States ; and his opinion that such men were not to be turned 
out of the church. 

My friend felt constrained, in his last speech, to give the 
audience some reasons for the singular course he has chosen 
to pursue, in failing, during a debate of thirteen hours, to pro- 
duce evidence from the Bible in support of his affirmative 
proposition. And what are his reasons ? The first is, that 
all his arguments were intended to be Bible arguments. In- 
deed ! Then how has it happened, that he has not given us 
Bible language — quotations from the inspired word ? It is 
truly singular, that in a discussion like this he should give us 
Bible arguments, and yet make not an effort to sustain them 
with quotations from the Bible. Or does he expect the 
audience to take it as granted, that all his assertions are in 
accordance with the Scriptures? Besides, he himself made 
the distinction between "the direct argument" for aboli- 
tionism and the Bible argument. When, on last evening, I 
stated that he had given notice of his intention to present the 
Bible argument, he corrected me by saying, it was the direct 
argument, not the Bible argument. And after having made 
the distinction, he now, with marvellous inconsistency, asserts 
that all his arguments are Bible arguments ! Such are the 
inconsistencies and contradictions into which men advocating 
error are driven. 

His second reason is, that the long discussion with which 
he has occupied the time, was necessary, in order to show 
what slavery is. Now, I thought that that was a matter 



ON SLAVERY. 249 

•understood by every body before he began. There is no 
mystery about it. But it did require a very long discussion 
indeed to show, that the relation of master and slave is iden- 
tical with the laws made in all times and countries to regu- 
late that relation. That, I confess, would require a much 
longer and much more convincing argument than any we 
have yet heard. Marriage, according to my friend's logic, 
is just what human laws define it to be ; and, according to 
the same authority (which is the gentleman's simple asser- 
tion) slavery is identical with the laws made for the regula- 
tion of the relation. A slave-holder, in other words, is 
necessarily as bad a man as the laws allow him to be ! 
This, it would require a long argument indeed to establish. 
I am persuaded, that inteUigent men never will believe doc- 
trine so palpably absurd as this, even after they have listened 
to his seven hours' argument. No one admits the correct- 
ness of the principles of his reasoning. 

The good brother charges me with having brought against 
him a railing accusation. Will he have the goodness to state 
what I have said, that deserves such an appellation? I am 
not conscious of having laid myself liable to such a charge. 
Besides, here are moderators presiding over the debate, 
whose office and duty it is to prevent any such indecorum, 
should it be attempted by either party. Certainly, in mak- 
ing such a charge, he pays them a poor compliment. 

The gentleman says, he is determined not to plunge into 
the labyrinths of Hebrew and Greek ; and he discourses elo- 
quently of a certain class of men, whom the world could well 
spare, who are great sticklers for lexicons and commentaries ; 
men who, like bats around the top of a tower, aspire to the 
high places in the church ; and who, like rats, are ever de- 
scending into dark cellars ! These men, he says, are fond 
of going back into remote and despotic ages to find argu- 
ments to sustain slavery. Truly, there is something strange 
in all this. I had really supposed, that the Hebrew of the 
Old Testament, and the Greek of the New, contained the in- 
spired words of the Holy Ghost ; and that to plunge into the 



250 DISCUSSION 

Hebrew and Greek, was to plunge into the clear light of 
divine truth. Moreover, the Confession of Faith which he 
has solemnly adopted, declares, that " in all controversies of 
religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them." But if 
we are to believe the gentleman, he who appeals to the ori- 
ginal languages in which the Scriptures were inspired, is 
plunging into mists and profound darkness ! Our Saviour 
tells us, that " he that doeth the truth, cometh to the light," 
and that only those who perform evil works, hate the light, 
and refuse to approach to it, lest their deeds should be re- 
proved. But the nature of men, it would seem, is now 
changed; for Mr. B. assures us, that the "pro-slavery men," 
who love darkness, and whose deeds are evil, insist on com- 
ing directly to the pure light — to the precise words of inspi- 
ration! Strange indeed! — yet not more strange than his 
description of them. He says, they are like bats flying about 
loftv towers, and like rats retreating to dark cellars. Curi- 
ous men these — like bats that fp up. and like rats that run 
down ! [ laughter.] Surely, if there are such men, the world, 
as Mr. B. says, might well spare them. One thing, however, 
I think most unaccountable, — viz : though like bats and rats, 
both of which love darkness, they insist on running directly 
into the light ; and even the gentleman, with all his efforts, 
cannot prevent them doing so ! 

The gentleman reminds me of a certain class of preachers, 
very zealous, though ignorant men, who are accustomed in 
their discourses, to thank God that they never rubbed their 
backs against a college. — They profess to get all their di- 
vinity by inspiration. Like them, my brother seems to thank 
God, that in discussing a question of Christian morals and 
faith, he has not run, where I have pressed him to go, i7ito 
the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Testament. Yet he has 
promised to go into both. Yes : he is going, it seems, to run 
into this very region of darkness, after condemning me for 
being disposed to do so ! How very consistent. 

But he says, if you take me off of my beaten track, I can 
do nothing. Well, I confess that in moral and religious 



ON SLAVERY. 251 

questions, I have "but one path, and that is illumined by the 
Bible, which " is a light to my feet, and a lamp to my path." 
I plead guilty: take me from this, and I can do nothing. 
jfApplause.] 

An inspired prophet, I remember, exhorts men to " inquire 
for the old paths," and to walk therein ; and I am the more 
mclined solemnly to regard the exhortation, because I have 
seen whither a contrary course has led men. I see where 
Garrison, and Leavitt, and Smith have got to, by striking out 
new paths, and turning from the good old way of Bible truth. 
No longer guided by the word of God, they are boldly de- 
nouncing the church of Jesus Christ, and with vain efforts 
laboring for its overthrow. The brightness of their new light 
has quite dazzled, if not absolutely deranged them. I desire 
not to follow in their footsteps. 

As to Constantine's ratifying the manumissions of the 
church, he was perfectly right in so doing; and the Legisla- 
ture of Kentucky does the same, though the members of that 
body do not, generally, profess to be pious men. But the re- 
quest of the slaves, if they made it, that the church funds might 
be applied to their ransom from heathen masters^ and the re- 
fusal of the church to comply with their request, is, to say the 
least, a very inconclusive evidence, that the church-member s, 
in that day, were all abolitionists! But Pope Gregory is 
quoted as saying, it is a wholesome act to restore to liberty 
men by nature free. So say I. Most heartily do I desire 
that every slave on earth should enjoy liberty; and I should 
truly rejoice to see the slaves of our country liberated and 
placed in Africa, the land of their fathers. There they can 
be free indeed, and their character can be elevated. In 
Liberia are found flourishing colonies of emancipated slaves, 
who have flourishing churches, and schools of their own. 
They are not in the condition of the free negroes of Ohio, 
who have the name of liberty, but know little of the bless- 
ings of freedom. They are deprived (and with the con- 
sent of the gentleman and his abolition friends) of the right 
to a voice in the making of the laws by which they are gov- 



252 DISCUSSION 

erned; degraded and down-trodden, having the name of free- 
dom without the thing itself I oppose abolitionism, as I 
before remarked, precisely because I believe that it post- 
pones and hinders a consummation so devoutly to be wished. 
If the course pursued by the abolitionists would, indeed, free 
the blacks, and improve their condition, I would be the last 
to oppose them. But with Dr. Chalmers, with Dr. Cun- 
ningham, with Dr. Griffin, with Dr. Spring, and many 
other eminent men — the true friends of the slaves — I be- 
lieve, most firmly, that the tendency of their principles, and 
of their whole course, is to perpetuate slavery, and to aggra- 
vate all its evils. 

What, then, is the doctrine I advocate ? That the slaves 
should be manumitted as speedily as this object can be 
effected without upturning the foundations of society. And 
I conscientiously believe that the course pursued by the 
abolitionists, has prevented the manumission of hundreds on 
hundreds of slaves in the southern States. 

But it is not sufficient for these modern reformers, that 
men should liberate all their slaves. They must adopt their 
views, refuse fellowship with all slave-holders, and denounce 
them • or they will be denounced and excommunicated. 
Rev. Mr. Graham, now of Kentucky, did liberate all his 
slaves ; yet he is now on trial before the New-School Synod 
of Cincinnati, for venturing to publish a speech against the 
peculiar views of abolitionists! 

I cheerfully concur in the sentiment quoted from Gregory, 
thouo-h he was a jpo'pe. But let it be remembered, that in 
the Roman empire there existed no such difficulties in the 
way of emancipation and of the elevation of the slave, as 
arise in our country from the difference of complexion: 
Call the strong aversion of the white man to the black, pre- 
judice; still it exists; and with the complexion of the negro 
is associated the idea of degradation. And so long as the 
negro lives in our country, he will be degraded. It was 
the prejudice of which I am speaking, which occasioned the 



ON SLAVERY. 253 

death of the poor negro in Indianapolis. His murderers, 
nevertheless, deserve to meet the full penalty of the law. 

Even in Ohio, the negro is deeply degraded, in conse- 
quence of the deep-rooted prejudice against his color. He 
is not allowed to vote in the State elections ; he cannot vote 
in your city elections ; you deprive him of these important 
rights, not because he is really more ignorant and degraded 
than multitudes of white men, but simply on account of 
his color. But in Liberia, the colored man does enjoy lib- 
erty. There all are placed upon a perfect equality. Black 
men are their governors, their legislators, their judges, 
their military officers, their merchants, &;.c. Yet the aboli- 
tionists have done their utmost to prevent the emancipated 
negroes from going thither, and to cripple the efforts of the 
Colonization Society. 

But I must again remind the audience, that the question 
under discussion is not, whether the slaves should be manu- 
mitted so soon as this object can be effected with safety to 
the parties concerned; but whether every man who is a 
slaveholder, is to be denounced as a heinous sinner, and ex- 
cluded from the church of Christ. He has told us, that 
from the sixth to the thirteenth century the doctrine of the 
abolitionists prevailed, and that by it slavery was abolished. 
Will he point us to a single instance, during that period, in 
which a man was excluded from the fellowship of the 
church, simply because he was a slave-holder? He has 
given instances in which the Christian feelings of men in- 
duced them voluntarily to liberate their slaves ; but he gave 
none in which any portion of the church required this ; and, 
I presume, he cannot. He has failed, therefore, in proving, 
that, during that period, the doctrines of abolitionism pre- 
vailed. 

It is curious to observe how, with this worthy brother, the 
same doctrine is abolition, or pro-slavery, just as it suits 
his argument. What was abolitionism in the sixth and fol- 
lowing centuries, is pro-slavery now. Dr. Chalmers is 
most decidedly opposed to slavery, and in favor of manumis- 



254 DISCUSSION 

sion ; he has published to the world his sentiments on this 
subject; yet he is denounced as pro-slavery: but Pope Gre- 
gory is a very good abolitionist, who held the self same 
sentiment, but in a different age and country. Thus " the 
legs of the lame are not equal." 

And now, I have something to submit on the subject of 
the liberation of slaves in the West Indies. I rejoiced, and 
do rejoice, in that event. I hope it may prove a blessing to 
the negro population ; but that, time must prove. Mean- 
while, I deny that it was brought about by the doctrines of 
modern abolitionism. 

Clarkson, to whom the gentleman refers so triumphantly, 
was not, at first, in favor of immediate, but of gradual, emanci- 
pation. The gentleman tells uS, however, that it was a book 
written by a certain lady, in favor of immediatism, that did 
the work. If so, the world has, to this hour, been under a 
great mistake : they never knew it before. I ask, did Clark- 
son and Wilberforce, in pleading for emancipation, ever de- 
nounce those who hold slaves, as kidnappers and man-steal- 
ers and call upon the church to turn them, out of her com- 
munion ? Never. They held the system to be wrong, and 
earnestly maintained that it ought never to have existed ; 
and who disputes this 1 But one generation can often bring 
difficulties on society, which the efforts of six generations 
cannot remove. We have inherited a great evil, and the 
query now is, how shall we get rid of it ? 

The gentleman gloried much over West India emancipa- 
tion • but he omitted to tell how much the British Parlia- 
ment gave to the planters as a compensation for the loss of 
their slaves. Our abolition friends, I believe, have never 
given any such proof of their zeal in the cause — probably 
from the fear of sanctioning the right of the slave-holder in 
his slaves as property. Pity the parliament had not been 
as cautious. But they so far sanctioned the " chattel princi- 
ple" as to pay twenty millions sterling for the slaves ; and 
even then they were not immediately set free, but were 
placed under a system of apprenticeship for seven years^ re- 



ON SLAVERY. 255 

ma'ming, during the whole of that period, still under a master. 
Thus the relation of master and servant continued for seven 
years. Emancipation there was gradual. Time was allowed, 
to prepare the slaves, in some measure, for the change in their 
condition. I would rejoice to see the slave-holding States 
devise some plan of gradual emancipation. Kentucky would 
have done so, I believe, ere this, but for the agitation caused 
by the abolitionists. By their indiscriminate and intem- 
perate abuse of all slave-holders, they excited the worst pas- 
sions of men, and put it in the power of demagogues to defeat 
the election of a candidate who would avow himself a gra- 
dual emancipationist, by representing him, to the ignorant 
and unreflecting, as an abolitionist. Time was, a few years 
since, when Judge Green, now, I trust, in heaven, and 
others of similar views, could be elected from year to year, 
though they failed not to agitate the subject in the legislature ; 
but few politicians, if any, would venture upon such a course 
now. For this unfavorable change, we are indebted to the 
ceaseless agitations of abolitionism. However, a reaction, I 
believe, has commenced ; and I hope, that, at no distant day, 
Kentucky will adopt some such plan of gradual emancipa- 
tion as was adopted by New Jersey, New York, and Penn- 
sylvania, and the older free States. 

I sympathize \^dth my zealous friend in all his "persecu- 
tions, of which he has 'given a touching account. Stones 
and brickbats, it seems, were hurled at him, thick and fast ; 
(I rejoice that not one of them hit him.) I will not call him 
a coward, exactly — ^but I must believe that he won't go 
across the river and preach abolitionism to the slave-holders, 
till I see him attempt it. 

It is truly remarkable, that although abolitionist ministers 
feel themselves standing in the clear light ; and though they 
so much deplore the condition of the people in Kentucky 
and other slave-holding States, as groping in midnight dark^ 
ness ; none of them have ever felt providentially called to 
go and preach the truth to them. They felt their souls stir- 
red within them in view of the hard bondage of the poor 



256 DISCUSSION ^ 

i 

slaves; and they have talked much, and talked stoutly, and 
A^Titten and resolved much ; but not one of them has been 
called to go and preach on the south side of the Ohio river. 
I cannotj for the life of me, understand it. [Much laughter.] 

The gentleman tells you that according to our Standards 
the infant of a slave, being illegitimate, cannot be baptized. 
This is news to me. I have seen nothing in our book for- 
bidding it. On the contrary, the decisions of our General 
Assembhes have been precisely the opposite; and I have, 
myself, baptized several. True, the laws of Georgia and of 
some others of the southern States forbid slaves being taught 
to read ; but I should not feel bound to regard such a law. 
No legislature has the right to forbid me to teach my family 
to read the w^ord of God. In the meeting recently held in 
Charleston, to devise means to extend religious instruction 
more generally to the slaves, I noticed, it was stated, in several 
letters, how many of them could read. And from informa- 
tion to be relied upon, the law forbidding the slaves being 
taught to read, in some of the States, is practically a dead let- 
ter — public sentiment being against it. 

I am very happy to percive that my good friend has him- 
self become a gradual emancipationist. He says a " reason- 
able time" must be allowed for a man to rid himself of slave- 
ry. But if slave-holding is a sin in itself, worse than stealing 
or blasphemy ; and if hell is not hot enough to punish it, 
then, surely, it must be abandoned at once — instantly. A 
man may not continue in known and flagrant sin one hour, 
one moment. A reasonable time ! He says, by way of 
illustration, that he would allow the owner of a distillery a 
reasonable time to wind up his business. But if distilling 
ardent spirits is in itself sinful, we dare not say to him who 
manufactures the poison, that he may continue it one hour. 
If a man were engaged extensively in mixing arsenic with 
food for the market, would the gentleman give him a " rea- 
isonable time " to cease his business 1 No — he would in- 
sist on his immediately "ceasing to do evil." A reasonable 
time for a kidnapper to cease kidnapping ! Who ever heard 



ON SLAVERY. 



257 



of such morals ? There are not a few slave-holders who 
would ask no better license to continue holding their slaves, 
than this. For they think it most unreasonable to manumit 
them, to remain amongst the whites. No : either it is sinful in 
itself, or it is not. If it is, let us hear no more about a rea- 
sonable time to abandon it. I do not believe it to be in it- 
self sinful, though it is a great evil, and, therefore,! can con- 
sistently go for its gradual removal. 

But I gave notice, last evening, that I intended to go, with- 
out farther delay, more directly into the Bible argument of 
the question before us ; and I shall do so, though the gen- 
tleman may regard me as rushing into darkness ! 

I have presented ^ue arguments, preliminary to the prin- 
cipal argument from the Bible (which I call the direct argu- 
ment) to show that slave-holding is not, in itself, sinful, and 
that the relation of master and slave is not a sinful relation. 

Let me recapitulate them. 

1. The great principles of the moral law are so written 
upon the hearts of men, that when presented they do com- 
mend themselves to the understandings and consciences of 
all, unless we except the most degraded. Slave-holding, ac- 
cording to abolitionists, is one of the grossest and most aggra- 
vated violations of that law ; and, consequently, the proposi- 
tion that slave-holding is in itself sinful, if true, must so 
commend itself to the minds of men. But it has not so 
commended itself, even to the wise and good generally; 

therefore, it is not true. 

2. No man, or society of men, ever were, or ever will be 
found, to be heretical on one fundamental point of Chris- 
tian doctrine, or one fundamental principle of morals, 
and yet sound on all the rest. The rejection of one funda- 
mental doctrine of Christianity, necessarily leads to the rejec- 
tion of others; and the rejection of a fundamental principle 
of morals, betrays a destitution of principle which will in- 
evitably lead to the rejection of others. The gentleman, as 
you remember, attempted to disprove this admitted principle, 
by referring to the Pharisees ; but it is notorious, that they 

17 



258 DISCUSSION 1 

were in error as to all the fundamental and distinguishing 
doctrines of Christianity, and rotten in morals, like " whited 
sepulchres." 

3. It is admitted by some abolitionists, and even by the 
gentleman himself, that there are Christians and Christian 
churches in the slave-holding States ; and that they sometimes 
enjoy seasons of religious reviving from the presence of the 
Lord. But it is a Scripture truth, that God does not answer 
the prayers and bless the labors of men living in heinous 
and scandalous sin. He does hear and bless those involved 
in slave-holding ; therefore, if it is not a heinous sin, as abo- 
litionists affirm. 

4. The faith of abolitionists leads them to pursue a course 
wholly different from that pursued by the apostles of Christ 
— a course, the tendency of which is to perpetuate slavery, 
and to aggravate all its evils. 1st, They denounce and vil- 
ify slave-holders, thus irritating them to the highest degree. 
The apostles went amongst men and reasoned with them. 
2d, They steal the slaves, and run them off to Canada. The 
apostles, so far from pursuing such a course, exhorted slaves 
to honor their masters, and serve them with all fidelity. 
3d, The aboHtionists, by their course, take from masters the 
glorious gospel, the only influence by which the condition of 
the slaves can be ameliorated, and by which it can be peace- 
ably abolished. Thus do they rivet the chains upon the 
slaves. 4th, Their course takes from the slaves that gospel 
which they especially need to elevate their character and 
render them happy, even in bondage ; and thus, whilst abo- 
litionists denounce the master, they leave the souls of the 
slaves to perish in their sins. The apostles of Christ w^ent 
forth preaching, both to masters and slaves, " the unsearcha- 
ble riches of Christ." Since then, the works of abolition- 
ists are so different from, and even opposite to the works of 
the apostles, under similar circumstances, it is evident that 
their faith is equally different and opposite. 

) 5th, The golden rule — " Whatsoever ye would that men 
should do to you, do ye even so to them" — though it requires 



ON SLAVERY. '^^^ 

US to improve the condition of our fellow-men, so far as we 
can, without disregarding other paramount duties, does not 
forbid slave-holding under all circumstances. On the con- 
trary, there are not a few instances in which it makes men 
slave-holders; because by becoming such, they can grea% 
improve the condition of a suffering fellow-creature, io 
this argument, as to most of the others, the gentleman has 

attempted no reply. 

And here, before I proceed, let me call your attention to 
one striking fact. Many odious charges, as you know, were 
brought against the apostles of Christ : and yet, though slav-e^ 
ry existed in its most odious form throughout all parts of the 
Roman Empire, they never uere charged with being ahob. 
tionists. Now I ask, and I put it to the candor of the 
brother opposed to me, and to the common sense of every 
man that hears me, if they had preached and acted as mod- 
ern aboUtionists do, is it possible that no such charge would 
have been made by any one of the innumerable slave-hold- 
ers with whom they came in contact % The apostles it wiU 
not be denied, were as faithful in preaching what they be- 
lieved to be truth, as our abolition friends, yet not a word 
of reproach was cast on them by any slave-holder, as if they 
had preached abohtionism. How is this fact to be accoun- 

ted for ? 

But, to the Bible argument. 

My first position is this : God did recognize the relation 
of master and slave among the Patriarchs of the Old Testa- 
tament; and did give express permission to the Jewish 
church to form that relation.-But God who is infinitely 
holy, could not recognize a relation in itself wrong, or give 
men permission to form such a relation. Therefore the re- 
lation of master and slave is not in itself sinful. 

I presume the brother will not maintain, that God can 
ever, under any circumstances, give men permission to com- 
mit sin. The question, then, is whether God did give permis- 
sion to the Jews to form the relation in question 1 If he 
aid, and it is in itself a sinful relation, then he did give 



260 DISCUSSION 

them express permission to commit abominable sin. I af- 
firm that he did give such permission, and will proceed to 
prove it from the clear and unequivocal declarations of the 

Bible. 

1 . God recognized the relation of master and slave among 

the patriarchs. 

' My first proof is, that Hagar was the female slave of Abra- 
ham and Sarah. The abolitionists tell us that word " ser- 
vant'^ in our English version of the Bible, does not mean 
slave. This word is derived from the Latin word servus, the 
literal and proper meaning of which, as every Latin scholar 
knows, is slave. The Romans had two words which they used 
to signify slave ; one was servus, the other, mancipium. In 
the passage, however, where Hagar is first named. Gen. xvi. 
1, she is called '' an handmaid" — and in the 2d, 3d, 5th, 6lh 
and 8th verses she is called Sarah's « maid." Sarah calls her 
"my maid." The Hebrew word shifha ti-anslated ^"maid " 
signifies a female slave. When the Jews spoke of a female 
slave, that was the word they generally employed. So it is 
understood by the best Hebrew scholars and lexicographers. 
Gessenius defines it by the Latin words famula, ancilla: 
both of which mean a female slave, a maid-servant, or waiting 
woman. 

2. The Septuagint version, which is a translation of the 
Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek language, and which was 
made by Hebrews, renders the word in the Hebrew by paidis- 
ke which, my brother will scarcely deny, means a female slave. 

3. But that Hagar was a slave is proved beyond contra- 
diction by the language of the apostle Paul, in Galatians, 4tb 
chapter, and 22d and following verses. " For it is writteiv 
that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid, th* 
other by a free woman — which things are an allegory : for 
these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, 
which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar 
is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which 
now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem 
which is above is free, which is the mother of us alU Kev- 



ON SLAVERY. 261 

ertheless what saith the Scripture 1 Cast out the bondwoman 
and her son ; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be 
heir with the son of the free." Several things are worthy 
of remark in this portion of Scripture. 1st. The two moth- 
ers are here placed in contrast ; the one called a. free woman, 
the other a bondwoman. Now if Hagar was a hired servant, 
if she was not a slave, she was as truly free, as Sarah, who 
is called her "mistress," and with whose condition in this 
respect hers is contrasted. 2d. The great truth the apostle 
designed to illustrate, requires, that we should understand 
Hagar to have been a slave. These things, he says, are an 
allegory ; the condition of Hagar the bondwoman illustrating 
the condition of the Jews who had rejected Christ, and w^ere 
in spiritual bondage or slavery ; the condition of Sarah the 
free woman illustrating the happy condition of true Christians, 
whom Christ made free. 3d. The Greek word in this 
passage, translated bondwoman, is paidiske — the same word 
used by the Septuagint in translating the Hebrew word shijha; 
and as it here stands in contrast M'ith the word elenihera, 
free, it must be understood to mean a female slave. It is 
impossible, without the grossest perversion of language, so to 
interpret this passage, as to make it consist with Hagar's 
being a hired servant, or any thing but a slave. The man 
whom I hire to labor for me, is as free as I am. Every 
hireling is a free man. He gives his labor for his wages, 
and receives, as a free man, quid jiro quo. Common sense 
is all that is requisite to enable us to understand the passage 
under consideration. 

4. Hagar was punished by Sarah for contemptuous be- 
havior. " When she saw that she had conceived, her mis- 
tress was despised in her eyes." Sarah remonstrating with 
her husband, "Abraham said unto Sarai, Behold thy maid 
is in thy hand, — do to her as it pleaseth thee. And w^hen 
Sarai dealt hardly wdth her, she fled from her face." Does 
this language suit the condition of a free hired servant ? Is 
a hired servant at the absolute disposal of the party hiring, 
so that he may do as he pleases to him? Is such the 



262 DISCUSSION 

condition of hired servants in Ohio ? And do hired servants 
run away from their employers ? Apprentices, I admit, 
sometimes do, but they are under indentures for a time set 
by law, and they are never spoken of as servants in contrast 
with free persons, as Hagar is ^vith Sarah. When Hagar 
had fled as far as to a fountain in the w^ilderness, the angel 
of the Lord found her; and what advice did he give her? 
" Flee, Hagar, as fast as you can, or Abraham will be after 
you?" No, nothing of the kind. "And the angel of the 
Lord said unto her, return to thy misiress, and submit thyself 
tinder her hands." It is plain, the good angel was no abo- 
litionist. What abolitionist, now on earth, would have given 
her such advice? But the angel was not then in the light 
of the nineteenth century. He was still in the " darkness of 
remote ages of despotism," of which the brother told us. 
Had he lived in the nineteenth century, he would doubtless 
have known better ! So we are obliged to suppose, if the 
doctrines of the abolitionists are true. 

My second proof, that God recognized the relation of mas- 
ter and slave among the patriarchs, is drawn from the ITth 
chapter of Genesis, which contains the institution of circum- 
cision. We read the 12th and 13th verses. "He that is 
eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man 
child in your generation, he that is born in the house, or 
bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 
He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with 
money, must needs be circumcised." Does not this divine 
provision prove, that at that time Abraham had servants, 
who w^ere bought with his money, as w^ell as such as were 
born in his house? — and were not servants bought with 
money slaves? If not, what w^ere they ? Who would so de- 
scribe a hired servant? And can we believe, that, if slave- 
holding were in itself sinful, God could have entered into a 
covenant with Abraham, requiring him not to liberate his 
slaves, but to circumcise them? 

2. Again, in the 20th chapter of Genesis and 14th verse, 
it is said : " and Abimelech took sheep, and oxenj and 



ON sla\t:iiy. 2G3 

men servants, and women servants, and gave unto them 
Abraham." Did he make a present to Abraham oi free 
hired servants 1 Will my brother say this ? No : they were 
slaves ; and as slaves they were transferred by free gift, from 
one master to another, just as slaves are now given away in 
the southern States. Abimelech gave, and Abraham receiv- 
ed them. If Abraham had been an abolitionist in senti- 
ment, would he have received such a present? Would he 
not have rebuked Abimelech for offering it to him? 

A third passage, to the same effect, is found in the 24lh 
chapter of Genesis, and at the 35th verse. Abraham's pious, 
confidential servant was trusted to go and bring a wife for 
his son Isaac, and in executing his commission, he said to 
Rebekah's relatives, "and the Lord hath blessed my master 
greatly; and he is become great: and he hath given him 
flocks and herds, and silver and gold, and men servants and 
maid servants, and camels and asses." (The brother is much 
scandalized at the manner in which slave-holders are wont 
to speak of their slaves, in the same breath with their horses 
and mules : here they are numbered in the same catalogue 
with camels and asses: but this I notice in passing.) Abra- 
ham's servant says, " The Loud hath given my master men 
servants and maid servants." God gave them to him as his 
own. Now, either this pious man blasphemed God, or 
slave-holding is no such sin as the brother maintains it to be. 
That these servants of Abraham were slaves, is evident, 
not only from the fact, that some of them were bought with 
mone}?-, that they were received as a present, and that they 
are enumerated as part of his possessions which the Lord 
has given him, but from the words employed to designate 
them. Shifha^ the word translated " maid servantj^ as we 
have already seen, means a female slave. And the word 
eved, translated man servant, means literally and properly a 
male slave. This is the word always used by the Hebrews, 
when they wished to speak definitely of a male slave. 
Gessenius, one of the most celebrated lexicographers, de- 
fines it thus: "Servus quo apud Hebro&os mancipium esse 



264 DISCUSSION 

solebat." A servant, one who used to be among the Hebrews 
a slave. Servus and mancij)iuvi were the two Latin words 
commonly used to signify a slave. Every Hebrew scholar 
will admit, that the Hebrew word for a male slave, is evcd. 
If the gentleman should deny it, will he be kind enough to 
tell us, what word the Hebrews used, when they wished to 
speak of slaves? And since they were surrounded by 
slaves and slave-holders, it will not be denied, that they had 
occasion to speak of them. 

But in Leviticus, 25th chapter, and 39th and following 
verses, we have not only the word which definitely means 
slave; but we have the thing itself so completely described, 
that there can be no room either for argument or for evasion. 

" And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee, be waxen poor, 
and be sold unto thee ; thou shalt not compel him to serve 
as a bo7id servant. But as a hired servant, and as a sojour- 
ner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year 
oj Jubilee: and then shall he depart from thee, both he and his 
children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and 
imto the possession of his fathers shall he return. For they 
are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of 
Egypt : they shall not be sold as bondmen. Thou shalt not 
rule over him with rigor ; but shalt fear thy God. 

'^Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids^ which thou shalt 
have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you : of 
them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the 
childrenof the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them 
shall ye buy., and of their families that are with you, which 
they begat in your land ; and they shall be your possession. 
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children 
after you, to inherit them for a possession: they shall be your 
bond?nen forkver: but over your brethren the children of 
Israel ye shall not rule one over another with rigor." 

I venture to say, there is not language more clearly and 
imequivocaily describing slaves in any slave code on earth, 
than is found in tliis chapter. Indeed I know not what 



ON SLAVERY. 265 

phraseology more unequivocal could be employed. Let us 
carefully examine it. 

There were among the Hebrews, several classes of ser- 
vants distinct from each other. 

1. There was the hired servant, who was called saldr. 
He was a free man, and his wages were to be paid prompt- 
ly. " The wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee 
all night until the morning." Levit. xix: 13. 

2. The Jew who had become poor and sold himself for 
six years, and who was to be treated, not as a slave, but as a 
hired servant. Levit. xxv : 40, This class is spoken of also 
in Exod. xxi : 2, as follows : " If thou buy an Hebrew ser- 
vant, six years he shall serve : and in the seventh he shall 
go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall 
go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall 
go out with him. If her master have given him a wife, 
and she have borne him sons or daughters : the wife 
and her children shall be his master's, and he shall go out by 
himself." Here, by the way, we find the legal principle so 
abused by the gentleman, " 'partus sequiter vcntremy — the 
state of the offspring is governed by the state of the mother. 

A servant of this class, though originally bought only for 
six years, might voluntarily become a bondservant during 
life. The law is as follows : 

" And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, 
my wife, and my children ; I will not go out free. Then 
his master shall bring him unto the judges ; he shall also 
bring him to the door, or unto the door-post ; and his master 
shall bore his ear through with an awl ; and he shall serve 
him. forever.''^ Exod. xxi ; 5,6. 

The same law is repeated, more fully, in Deut. xv : 12, 
*' And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew wo- 
man, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years : then in the 
seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And 
when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let 
him go away empty : thou shalt furnish him liberally out of 
thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine-press : ef 



266 DISCUSSION 

that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou 
Shalt o-ive unto him. And thou shalt remember that thou 
was a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the Lord thy God 
redeemed thee : therefore I command thee this thing to-day. 
And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from 
thee ; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is 
well with thee : then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it 
through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant 
forever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do 
likewise." 

3. The Gibeonites, who by treachery had obtained an 
oath from the children of Israel to spare their lives, were, for 
their deceit, made " hewers of wood and drawers of water to 
the congregation, and for the altar of the Lord, even unto 
this day, in the place which he should choose." I do not 
say, they were slaves in the same sense with others ; but 
they were condemned to involuntary servitude. The prin- 
ciple of bond-service was there. 

4. There was still a fourth class of servants, who were 
bought of the heathen. These were all slaves during life. 
" Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt 
have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you : of 
them shall buy bondmen and bondmaids, <&c." 

It is evident, that these were slaves, from several conside- 
rations : — 

L They were bought with money ^ which certainly was 
not the case with hired servants. My brother will here tell 
you, that the Hebrews were accustomed, sometimes, to buy 
their wives. I do not deny that they sometimes did so, but 
when a man bought a woman as a wife^ she was his wife ; 
and when a man bought persons, male or female, for ser- 
vants, or bondmen, they were his bondmen or slaves. The 
bondmen here spoken of, were bought for servants. 

2. The bondmen and bondmaids here spoken of, are not 
only distinguished from, but put in contrast wath hired ser- 
vants ; " And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen 
poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to 



ON SLAVERY. 267 

serve as a hond servant^ but as an hired servant^ and as a so- 
journer shall he be with thee." The words used to desig- 
nate these two classes of servants, are different. The hired 
servant is called sakir] and the bond servant, or slave, is cal- 
led eved. , 

3. The contrast in which the hired servant is here placed 
with reference to the bondservant, as well as the words by 
which the two are respectively designated, proves beyond 
question, that the latter was a slave. For if both were hir- 
ed servants, how could Moses command that the Jewish ser- 
vant should be treated, not as a bond servant^ but as a hired 
servant^ Will the gentleman please to explain? 
! The same contrast is found in Exod. xii. 44, 45, where 
Moses gives directions concerning those who might or 
might not partake of the Passover. '-But every man 
servant that is bought for money ^ when thou hast circum- 
cised him, then shall he eat thereof A foreigner and an 
hired servant shall not eat thereof" The servant bought 
with money, belonged to the family, and might, therefore, 
partake of the Passover ; but the hired servant, temporarily 
in the family, could not. 

^ 4. The servants thus bought, are declared to be the pos- 
session of their masters, and the inheritance of their chil- 
dren. The words here translated possession diXid. inheritance^ 
are constantly used with reference to landed estate, or any 
other property. No stronger expression can be found in the 
Hebrew language, to express the claim of the master to the 
services of those bought with his money. 

5. It is further evident that these servants were slaves, be- 
cause they might be compelled to obey their masters, not by 
law, as a debtor might be compelled to pay his debts, but by 
chastisement ; and that might be very severe without exposing 
the master to the penalty of the civil law. The law on this sub- 
ject is in Exod. xxi : 20. " And if a man smite his servant, or 
his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand : he shall 
be surely punished : notwithstanding, if he continue a 
day or two he shall not be punished ; for he is his inoney.^^ 



268 DISCUSSION 

Can any one believe that this language was meant to apply- 
to a free man, hired for his labor? Do you call your hired 
servants your money ? Or do you claim authority to punish 
them with a rod ? 

6. That these servants were not free men, is equally man- 
ifest from Exodus xxi : 26. " If a man smite the eye of 
his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish ; he shall 
let him go free, for his eye's sake ; and if he smite out his 
man servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's 
sake." 

How could liberty be granted to them in consequence of 
the loss of a tooth or of an eye, if they were free before? 

{Time expired. 



Friday, 4 o'clock, P. M., Oct. 3, 1845. 

[MR. BLANCHARD's TENTH SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen Moderators^ and Gentlemen and Ladies^ Felloio- 

Citizens : 

While the house is getting quiet I will glance hastily at 
some points which my friend has raised. I request your 
careful attention while I do so. 

My brother would have you think that the action of the 
Scotch General Assembly is the same in principle with the 
action of the Old School Assembly, which lately met in this 
city — whose report, written by Dr. Rice himself, contains 
not one word condemnatory of slavery or of those who 
practice it. I will read one part of the Scotch Assembly's 
Keport which brother Rice omitted. 

" All must agree that whatever rights the civil law may 
give a master over his slaves as ' chattels personal,' it cannot 
but be a sin of the deepest dye in him to regard or treat 
them as such : and whosoever commits that sin in any sense, 
or deals otherwise with his fellow men, whatever power the 
law may give him over them, ought to be held disqualified 
for Christian communion.^\ 



ON SLAVERY. 2G9 

That is far enough from his Assembly's action." 

He has presented for the third or fourth time, the propo- 
sition that men are not fundamentally wrong on one point, 
and fundamentally sound on all others. He evidently attaches 
some importance to this point, from which affirmation ( for 
it is but assertion) he wishes to infer that slave-holders, 
being admitted to be sound on other points, cannot be sinning 
in holding slaves. 

In answer, I observe that Rev. John Newton, while right 
in every other point of faith and practice, was engaged in 
the slave-trade on the coast of Africa. We all agree that the 
slave-trade is piracy. He therefore was unsound on one 
point while sound on all others. 

Moreover, sinners commonly become blind to the truth 
point by point. They fall before some one temptation, and 
seek to find a creed which will fit that one indulgence ; so 
that his argument does not hold, being defective in his main 
proposition. It is not true that men are never found sound 
on all points but one and defective in that. 

He seemed to say something in reply to what I advanced 
showing that the doctrine, that slave-holding is sin, was the 
potent principle which abolished Roman slavery. His re- 
mark was, I think, that there was no comparison between 
Roman slavery and ours because Roman slaves were not 
colored persons. In this he is mistaken, as to fact, Africa 
was one chief source of slaves sold in the Roman market. 
And great numbers of African females especially, were kid- 
napped and sold in the Balerian Isles, at the highest price 
commanded by Roman slaves. 

I was glad to hear my brother avow himself a gradualist, 
opposed to slavery, and approving of its abolition in New 
Jersey and other northern States, where it is either abolished 
or fast perishing by the operation of anti-slavery laws. I 
could not help reflecting, however, that an expression of his 
deep hostility to slavery would have been highly appropriate 
in his report to his last General Assembly. But no, not one 
sentence or word or syllable does that report contain calcula- 



270 DISCUSSION ' 

ted to lead any one to conjecture that strong opposition 
which its author tinds it proper to express here, against 

slavery. 

I could not help remembering too, as I heard his warm 
zeal for gradual emancipation declared, that there is anoth- 
er Kentuckian who is a gradualist ; I allude to Cassius M. 
Clay, before whose intellect common minds do homage, and 
acknowledging the superiority of his genius, cordially love 
the warm and honest sincerity of his heart. Yet we have 
heard from Kentucky lips — aye, from clerical lips, a sneer 
at Cassius M. Clay on account of one single expression, for 
which he was made an ofiender and his press mobbed down. 
The phrase was an over-ardent depicting of the dangers of 
men of wealth — from slavery ; warning them that " but a 
single pane of glass intervened between the smooth skinned 
woman on the Ottoman," and the hard hands in the streets 
which the slave-system makes and keeps poor and poverty 
makes desperate. 

I considered it an unfortunate expression, though in an 
ordinary political paper, and on any other subject, it would 
liave excited no special alarm, and passed as the eloquent 
rounding of a period. No human creature, not absolutely in- 
sane, would suspect him for a moment, of a desire to stimu- 
late slavery to cut the throats of the ladies of Kentucky. C. 
M. Clay is in favor of gradual emancipation, and proves it by 
earnest efforts to bring it about. Dr. Rice is a gradualist 
also, and evinces his zeal in the cause of gradual destruction 
of slavery by attempting to prove slave-holding to be no sin, 
denouncing abolitionists, and sneering at the writings of C. 
M. Clay. His words at least in this debate look toward 
emancipation but his deeds all run toward slavery. 
I For the fifth or sixth time he has arraigned the abolition- 
ists for " running off slaves,''^ that is, for aiding those who 
are running off; and he seeks to make the impression upon 
your minds that the angel who sent back Hagar, (whom he 
considers a lunaway slave ) to Abraham, was really an in- 
stance of arresting and sending back fugitives from slavery 



ON SLAVEHY. '271 

to their owners. This he says, proves abolition principles 
to be wrong, because they lead them not to follow this angel's 
example in sending back runaways ; but to an opposite 
course, viz : running them off to Canada. Yet when I ur- 
ged him, he himself declared that he would not help take up 
runaways — and 1 say he would he a ruffian if he would, 
[Applause. ] But how is it that this angel's example binds 
abolitionists and not Dr. Rice ? The whole point of his oft- 
repeated argument is that abolition principles are wrong be- 
cause they lead to a practice different from this angel's : yet 
in almost the same breath he tells us that he himself will 
not follow this angel's example in sending fugitive slaves 
back to their masters. If he means this argument for an 
argument ; the next time Betsey or Sue or Peggy sets out for 
Canada through Ohio, my friend is bound by the rules which 
he seeks to enforce on others, to call on God to send this 
angel or some other along with him and scratch gravel after 
her as she dashes away for the land of freedom. [A laugh.] 
Let him stand up to his own principles or cease to upbraid 
abolitionists for not following an example which he rejects. 
Consistency is indeed a jewel. 

■ The fact is, abolitionists are not the only ones who aid 
slaves to escape. I stood in the window of an inn one bright 
night, and saw some two thousand men gathered in the 
town square at the door, swearing they would raze the house 
unless the landlord gave me up to be murdered or insulted 
as an abolitionist. And I Avas amused at the trick, when 
unbeknown to me, the landlord sent some person, by a back 
way into the skirt of the crowd, who ran down a street cry- . 
ing, " Here he goes ! " '' Here he goes ! " when the whole 
crowd ran off at full speed in the pursuit. 

This inn-keeper, though a genuine latitudinarian landlord, 
in favor of no particular principles, and, especially, no aboli- 
tionist, yet would help off runaway slaves. He told me 
about 12 o'clock that night, when all was quiet, how he 
found two in his wheatfield who had come from Georgia, 
near 400 miles, all the way by night. He noticed some- 



272 DISCUSSION 

thing had trailed down the young green wheat and followed 
them under an apple tree where they lay hid in a little ra- 
vine, with eighteen green apples which they had stolen for 
food, each about as large as the end of your thumb. They had 
divided them equally, nine apiece. When the poor crea- 
tures saw they were discovered they ran off to a saw-mill 
pond, and dived among the logs and slabs, down into the 
muddy water like '• black ducks." And, '• do you think," said 
the landlord, " when I got them by the feet to pull them out 
(for they seemed determined to drown themselves,) I saw 
that the poor creatures had worn almost every particle of 
skin off the bottoms of their feet in travelling. When I 
got them out, they fell on their knees crying ' Oh God-a- 
mercy massa, we be no thieves, we be only runaways, massal 
Oh God-a-mercy massa ! ' ' Never mind,' said I, ' if that's 
all, you shant be hurt.' " He then went to a paper-rag ware- 
house and from the cast off rags got them tolerable suits of 
clothes, and, aided by another benevolent man of the village, 
concealed them, and finally bought one for a nominal price 
of the master who came in pursuit. "But," said my land- 
lord, with a rueful look; "He would'nt sell the other for 
love or money, and so we were obliged to slip him off The 
one we bought has paid his purchase money, works up here, 
and is doing well." 

Now can any minister of Christ condemn and denounce 
that inn-keeper for the part he took in aiding those wretched 
men. If he can, be he who he may. I say again, though he 
may have the exterior of a preacher, he has a ruffian's heart! 

My friend still insists that I bring no argument from the 
Bible. I have already told you that I have prepared a speech 
of an hour and a half of the kind he calls for ; and I intend 
by the help of God, in due time to give that branch of my 
subject a full and fair consideration ; and to show that the 
apostolic or New Testament churches did not receive slave- 
holders to their communion. Meantime, I will, in passing, 
give him a slight taste of the argument, as he seems famish- 
infr for it, 



ON SLAVERY. 273 

You know how anxious he has all along seemed, to put 
slave-holding upon a level with marriage. "Both," he 
argues are liable to abuses ; but one is no more wrong than 
the other, nor is there more harm in the relation of master 
and slave, than in that of husband and wife. So I under- 
stand my friend, and if I state him wrong I hope he will 
put me right : — 

Mr. Rice. I have put the gentleman right more than 
once, but I have little hope that he will stay right. I said 
no such thing. I said that he has no right to urge arguments 
against the relation of master and slave which would do 
away the marriage relation. 

Mr. Blanchard. I thank him for his explanation but not 
for the sneer " that I will not stay right." 

Mr. Rice. It is the third time I have put you right upon 
this point. 

Mr. Blanchard. May be so. That is not according to 
my recollection of it, but if so, let my brother remember 
'''■ errare est humanum^ ignoscere divinum.^^ 

I will take him where he now stands if I can get there. 
He holds that the same arguments which would prove slavery 
sinful, would also prove marriage sinful. No. I am wrong. 
" The arguments which I use would prove marriage sinful : 
That is, 1 appeal to you all, that, in point of not being sinful^ 
the relation of slavery is on a level with marriage." Slavery, 
like marriage, is a non-sinful relation. To establish this, he 
says that the apostle did not denounce slavery but regula- 
ted it as he did marriage. Now to show you that this, 
which he and his friends rely upon as a chief point in their 
argument, is an utter fallacy, you have but to apply the 
advice of Paul respecting the slave relation to that of mar- 
riage. Thus, he says, " Art thou called being a servant 
care not for it, but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." 
Now apply this to the marriage relation ; " Art thou called be- 
ing a husband, care not for it, but if thou mayest be made free, 
use it rather." [Laughter.] Ecce humbug! No man on earth 
would ever iiave thought of comparing slavery with mar- 



274 DISCUSSION 

riage if slavery had not first existed, an abuse requiring de- 
fence, and blinding with its rewards, the minds of the wise. 

I say of the Mosaic bond service, Avhich he adduces as a 
pattern and precedent for American slavery, in the words of 
a father now in my eye, (Dr. Beecher,) "it was'nt slavery:" — 
"It is a mockery to call it so," 

And as to the ear-bored servant who was to remain with 
his master "forever:" — My friend seemed to rejoice as if he 
had found grcat'spoil, when he quoted this case, which after 
all, is simply that of a man, who, after long acquaintance, 
wished to live with his master, and came voluntarily before 
the judges, and had his ear bored that he might remain till 
the next jubilee. 

He cited also the case where the servant coming into ser- 
vice and going out at the end of six years, if he married 
while in service, his wife was not to go out with him. I 
looked narrowly here, and was glad to miss that cold corpse- 
like smile ; that fiend-like grin, which I saw on the lips of 
a minister of twenty years standing in his Presbytery, who 
brought up the case as one where God had sanctioned the 
separation of slave-husband and wife — a minister to whom 
brother Rice has seen fit to refer as a man persecuted 
by his synod, who are trying him for pro-slavery teaching. 
But at any rate Dr. Rice thinks this a case of a six years 
slave who went out while his wife, being a life-slave, stayed 
behind. Nevertheless, it is true that some servants were 
brought in from the heathen, and if they were not converted 
in one year they were sent back. If one of these had mar- 
ried a Hebrew wife, God would not let him take her back 
into idolatry. 

This was a good reason, a merciful, missionary, and glo- 
rious reason : a reason as wide of the spirit of the slave- 
cofile relation as heaven is wide of hell. The law merely 
exempts a pious woman from the necessity of following a 
worthless husband into idolatry and want. If the woman 
wish to go with her husband, she had nothing to do but run 



I 



ON SLAVERY. 275 

away with him and the law of God forbid the Sending her 
back. 

My friend must now consent to wait for my Bible argu- 
ment, seeing I have given him a taste of it just by way of 
spice. 

But he meets my argument showing that the principles of 
abolitionism have abolished slavery, by declaring that British 
emancipation was not immediate abolition, nor its authors 
modern abolitionists. So in his printed lectures, he tells us 
that " Wilberforce, Clarkson and others, ivere far from being 
abolitionists in the modern sense.^^ — Rice's Lectures^ p. 67. 
His design is to prove that West India emancipation was not 
a triumph of the principle that immediate emancipation is a 
duty, and slave-holding a sin. I beg you will remember his 
printed statement that Clarkson and company were not abo- 
litionists in the modern sense, for I wish to test this statement 
by facts. You will mark that the point between us is, wheth- 
er the principles of abolitionists have, as he says, abolished 
slavery '• ?io?x'Aere on earth;'' ox "everywhere," where it 
has perished without bloodshed, as I say. 

Let us now see whether the authors of the West Indian 
emancipation of August, 1834; M'ere "far from being aboli- 
tionists in the modern sense." 

I hold in ray hand an "Essay on Slavery, by Thomas 
Clarkson'" who is still Uving, and well known on both sides 
of the Atlantic, to be, so far as one man can be, the very life 
and heart's blood of the English abolition movement. And 
w^here think you, was this book printed, when, and by whom? 
It was published in 1816, ai Georgetown, Kentudaj, by the 
Rev. David Barroio. So the doctrines of Clarkson, which I 
will read, were once popular in Kentucky, before the gold of 
her piety became dim, and her fine gold changed. Surely 
some must have favored his views to warrant the pubUcation 
there of his book. 

Now what are Clarkson's doctrines on slavery, laid down 
in this book, the writing of which led him, then a university 



276 J DISCUSSION 

Btudent, to resolve on devoting his life to the cause of hu- 
manity against slavery ? 

Before reading, I must remark that I never said, as broth- 
er R. stated, that the pamphlet called '• Immediate not grad- 
ual Abolition''^ changed the principles of English abolition- 
ists, but that it contributed to change their mode of operation — 
to produce a new application of their principles. Clarkson's 
principles were the principles of British abolition. This es- 
say was written when he was a young man. He has now 
labored, as his last letter in my desk shows, more than fifty- 
nine years, exclusively in this cause. He was the means 
of bringing to its aid the talents of Wilberforce, Pitt and 
Fox, and of organizing the committee of which Granville 
Sharp was chairman and Macauley an active member. He 
was, as I said, the soul of the English anti-slavery movement ; 
and this essay, which he wrote at the instance of Dr. Peck- 
ard, and which gained the prize at Cambridge University, 
sixty-five years ago; was his first essay on the subject, 
and has been the chart of his principles ever since, and of those 
of the English abolitionists ; — and this is the summing up of 
his doctrines on the last page at the end of the book ; — 

" But this is sufficient. For if liberty is only an advan- 
titious right; if men are by no means superior to brutes ; if 
every social duty is a curse ; if cruelty is highly to be es- 
teemed : if murder is strictly honorable ; and Christianity 
is a lie ; then it is evident that African slavery may be pur- 
sued without either remorse of conscience or the imputation 
of a crime. But if the contrary of this is true, which rea- 
son must immediately evince, it is evident that no custom 
established among men was ever more impious ; since it is 
contrary to reason, justice, nature, the principles of law and 
government, the whole doctrine, in short, of natural religion, 
and the revealed voice of God," — Clarkson^s Essay. Ken- 
tucky Ed. p. 175. 

That was Clarkson's doctrine sixty-nine ago ; and it was 
the doctrine which has wrought out the English abohtion. 
What then becomes of Dr. Chalmers, and his declaration 



' ON SLAVERY. ] 277 

that ours is a new dogma ? What of Dr. Rice and his pub- 
lished assertion that Clarkson is " far from being an aboli- 
tionist in the modern sense ?" 

My brother, anxious to prove that abolitionists hold horri- 
ble doctrines, refers again to the book of Rev. James Dun- 
can , and not to the book only but to the man, who, he says, 
"was as crazy as Foster." 

Mr. Rice explained. That is a mistake. I said that Fos- 
ter was not a whit more crazy than Duncan. 

Mr. Blanchard. I accept the correction. He did not say 
that " Duncan was as crazy as Foster;" but that "Foster 
was not more crazy than Duncan." [A laugh.] 

Now what is his chief accusation against this pious mis- 
sionary and man of God, whose life was devoted to preach- 
ing Christ in the early log cabins of Kentucky, Ohio, Indi- 
diana and Illinois ; and who died on a missionary tour ? The 
head and front of Duncan's offending in his book is, that he 
teaches that " slaves have a right to resist their enslavement 
by force.''^ 

Now, in respect to this doctrine, though we, as abolition- 
ists, do not undertake to disprove the right of force, com- 
monly called the right of revolution ; yet, we do not give 
such advice to the slaves, but the contrar}^ We tell them, 
as Paul told the Christian slaves of heathen masters, to sub- 
mit cheerfully and patiently to their condition, but if they 
may be made free to " use it rather." To 

'' Wait for the dawning of a brighter day, 

" And snap the bond the moment when they may." 

We have other motives beside our principles, in teaching 
slaves to endure their burdens, though hea\y — never to rise 
in warfare, but to wait. Many of our parents, sons, brothers, 
sisters and other relatives, live in the South. Many have 
gone down and married plantations of slaves, particularly 
ministers' sons, and we do not Avish to have these killed 
in a general massacre. We are moralists, and we leave 
politicians to regulate questions of force. , 



278 DISCUSSION 

Yet, sec what language this book of Mr. Clarkson — puh- 
lished in Kentucky— holds on this very point, which he 
brings against Duncan, viz : the right of slaves to resist by 
force : 

" Let us suppose, then, that in consequence of the com- 
merce, you were forced into a ship : that you were conveyed 
to another country ; that you were sold there ; that you were 
confined to incessant labor there; that you were pinched 
by continued hunger and thirst, and subject to be whipped, 
cut, and mangled at discretion, and all this at the hands of 
those whom you had never offended ; would you not think that 
you had a right to resist their treatment? Would you not 
resist with a safe conscience ? And would you not be sur- 
prised if your resistance should be termed rebellion? By 
the former premises you must answer, yes. Such, then, is 
the case with the wretched Africans. They have a right to 
resist your 'proceedings. They can resist them^ and yet they 
cannot he justly termed rebellious. You have no right to 
touch even the hair of their heads without their own con- 
sent. It is not your money that can invest you wdth a right. 
Human liberty can neither be bought nor sold. Every lash 
you give them is unjust. It is a lash against nature and 
religion, and will surely stand recorded against you, since 
they are all, with respect to your impious selves, in a state 
of nature ; in a state of original dissociation, perfectly free." 
— Clarkson^ s Essay. Ky. Ed., p. 166. 

This book is of Kentucky manufacture, published at 
Georgetown, by Rev. David Barrow, in 1816, and must 
have found some circulation there to pay the printer. I 
hope my friend will not blame me for quoting Kentucky 
doctrines from Kentucky books. 

For myself, I am a minister of the peaceful gospel of the 
Prince of Peace. Though not strictly a non-resistant, I 
would say to every slave, 

" 'Tis better, to bear tlio ills we have, 

" Than fly to others which we know not of." 

But my friend may take it into his head that these senti- 



1 



ON SLAVERY. 279 

ments of Clarkson were errors of his youth, and that he had 
changed his opinions before the first of August Abolition 
of 1834. Let us see. 

Here is a work of Clarkson, published by Johnston <^ Bar- 
rett, London, 1841. Let us read and see if fifty-nine years 
service in the cause of the slave, has not -softened down and 
changed the sentiments of this venerable patriarch and 
apostle of human liberty. It is a ^'Letter to the clergy 
of the various denominations^ and to the planters in the 
southern parts of the United States of America" This 
is to the clergy : ' 

" I fear, gentlemen, that this is the case with you, that you 
have become gradually more hardened, and that you are not 
the men you once were. Indeed, I have been informed 
that you make no scruple to declare, both in public and 
private, and even in your pulpits, that the practice of slave- 
ry is no sin. But if you cannot see sin in the monstrous 
oppression of your fellow creatures which is going on daily 
before your eyes, I do not see luhere sin is to be found at all, 
or that you can impute it to any actions of men, however 
gross or injurious. Perhaps your ideas of sin may be differ- 
ent from mine. My notion of sin is that it is a " transgres- 
sion of the lata of God," * * * * Do you agree with 
me in the representations now made to you ? Do you allow 
that any one transgression of the divine commandments, 
which are solely of a moral nature, is sin ? If you do, I 
shall have no difficulty of proving to you, that slavery is a> 
sin of the deepest dye." — Clarkson^ s letter to clergy, p. 8. 

Mr. Rice distinguishes between slavery and slave-holding. 
But when Clarkson says that " slavery is si7i" he means that 
slave-holding is sin. Thus, on page 15, of this letter: 

" I come to a very serious and awful part of the subject ; 
that is, I am to prove to you that you are guilty of sin in 
holding them in bondage, or that slavery is sin in the sight 
of God, of the deepest dye." 

And again on page 22 : " It is sin in its root, sin in its 
branches^ and sin in its fruit. And yet, living where all 



280 ■ 'discussion 

those evil practices are going on, you can see no evil or sin 
in slavery. May God, of his mercy, provided your day of 
visitation be not over, grant you to see slavery in its true 
light, before your "houses are left unto you desolate." — 
Matt, xxiii. 38. 

Now, remember that the question between Dr. Rice 
and us, is, "/s slave-holding sinful?^'' I have read you 
Clarkson's opinion on the point ; yet, my friend has printed, 
in his lectures, that Clarkson is " far from being an abolition- 
ist in the modern sense." 

But, beside our doctrine that " slave-holding is sin," we 
are for turning unrepenting slave-holders out of the church, 
and the refusing our pulpits to slave-holding ministers. 
Perhaps brother Rice means that Clarkson is " far from being 
an abolitionist in this sense." Let us see what he holds as 
to this practical application of our principles. I still read 
from page 22d, of his letter: 

"And now, gentlemen, (the southern clergy,) I am going to 
address you on a different branch of the subject and in a man- 
ner somewhat different from that before. I feel it my duty to 
warn you., if you be honorable men, that you ought to with- 
draw yourselves from the sacred office of ministers of the gos- 
pel of Christ, since your doctrines, as they relate to slavery, are 
at variance with the revealed ivord of God. You are doing 
no good, with your present sentiments, to genuine Christian- 
ity, but lowering the excellence of its standard, and leading 
your flocks astray." 

Amen and amen, to these just and honest sentiments. I 
■wonder if my friend will confess that Clarkson is an aboli- 
tionist? [Time expired. 



[MR. hice's tenth speech.] 
Gentlemen Moderators^ and Fellow Citizens : 

[\ am happy to observe, that those of the audience who 
hear me, usually hear the brother who is opposed to me. I 
desire that all who have thought with me, and those, even, 
whose minds are fully made up upon the question, would 



ON SLAVERY. 5281 

remain, in quiet and respectful attention, and listen to every 
word he has to say.] 

The truth never gains, nor seeks to gain, any thing by 
misrepresentation. There are causes, however, which never 
gain much in any other way; and, if I mistake not, aboli- 
tionism is of this class. 1 have remarked, that when any 
thing occurs bearing on the subject of slavery, the gentle- 
man is sure to get hold of that end of the story, which suits 
his views, and equally sure never to hear the other end. 
In the progress of this discussion, he told us of a colored 
man, a member of the Presbyterian Church, in Danville, 
Ky., who was sold by his master, a member of the same 
church, so as to be removed to a distance from his wife. 
So much of the story was adapted to promote abolitionism, 
and bring reproach upon a church of Christ. But he was 
careful not to tell the whole truth on the subject. Now it 
so happens, that there is in this house a minister of the gos- 
pel who resided in Danville at the time, and who received 
that colored man into the church ; and he informs me, that 
the church session did take cognizance of the case, and en- 
force the discipline of the church against the master. To 
tell only a part of the truth, is often the most effectual me- 
thod of telling a falsehood. The impression made upon the 
audience, by the gentleman's statement, was wholly at war 
with the truth in the case. I have little doubt that the other 
facts of the same character, which he has so eloquently de- 
tailed, are equally incorrect. 

He told you that the Church of Scotland had declared, 
that whoever regarded his slaves as mere property, ought to 
be turned out of the church ; but that our Assembly, at its 
late meeting, did not express this sentiment. I have already 
proved, that the Assembly strongly condemned the sin of 
regarding and treating men as mere property ; and he knows 
it to be a law of our church, declared by the Assembly of 
1818, that any member of the church who is guilty of cru- 
elty toward his slaves in any way, especially by traffic for 
gain, and the separation of husbands and wives, shall be ex- 



282 DISCUSSION 

eluded from the church. Is it necessary, that the same law 
should be declared every year, in order to satisfy the gentle- 
man? None are so blind as those who are resolved not 
to see. 

In attempting to reply to my argument, founded on the 
fact, that no man or body of men was ever known to be 
heretical on any one fundamental point of morality, or of 
Christian faith, and sound on all others, Mr. Blanchard re- 
ferred us to the Pharisees, who, as he informed us, were 
quite orthodox on all points except one, viz.: they rejected 
Christ, and regarded him as an impostor I 

Driven from that refuge, he now refers us to John New- 
ton, as a case in point. Newton, he informs us, wrote excel- 
lent hymns at the very time he was engaged in the slave 
trade on the coast of Africa. I do not know precisely the 
time when he commenced WTiting his hymns, but I do know, 
that he himself informs us, that the light entered his mind 
very gradually and almost imperceptibly; and at the time to 
which the gentleman refers, he was in such darkness, that 
he could afterwards scarcely determine whether he was a 
converted man or not. We know also how^ the early period 
of Newton's life was spent ; that his mind was enveloped in 
midnight darkness on the whole subject of religion; and 
that he was most hardened in sin, and degraded in moral 
character. Yet, this man, just emerging from the midnight 
gloom, is brought forward to prove that the Christian minis- 
ters and churches in the slave-holding States, may be ortho- 
dox on all other points of faith and morals, and yet funda- ^ 
mentally erroneous in regard to the horrible sin of slave- 
holding! — to prove, that such men as Chalmers, and 
Cunningham, of Scotland, and Tyler, of Connecticut, and 
the great body of eminently wise and good men, may be in 
the same predicament ! ! ! 

The brother says, that most of the slaves at Rome were 
Africans. 
. [Mr. Blanchard here rose to explain. I said that Africa 



ON SLAVERY. 283 

was one of the chief sources from which they were drawn, 
but not that a majority came- from there.] 

Well, be it so, I will not inquire, whether all slaves 
born in Africa were black : whether they were or not, my 
remark will hold good, that there did not exist, at Rome, in 
that day, the same prejudice in regard to slaves which exists 
at this day and in this country. In the Roman empire, as 
he very well knows, slaves generally did not differ in com- 
plexion from their masters, and therefore they were required 
to wear a cap and a coat of a peculiar shape, to distinguish 
them from free citizens. The slave had only to change his 
cap and his coat, and wear the dress of a free man ; and he 
would stand on a perfect equality with other citizens. It 
could not be known that he had ever been a slave. But 
with us, the color of the slave creates a prejudice against 
him ; and so strong is that prejudice, that even a free colored 
man is not, in fact, free. He does not, and cannot, enjoy the 
privileges of a white man. There are insuperable difficul- 
ties in the way of his enjoying all the rights and privileges 
of a free man. As I have said before, I am in favor of the 
gradual emancipation of the slaves, and of having them 
placed, with their own consent, where these difficulties do 
not exist — where they will be free, not in name^ but in 
reality. 

I will here notice the statement of the gentleman, that in 
the Report adopted by the General Assembly, there is no 
intimation of a wish that slavery should ever be abolished at 
all. What is the language of that Report ? I will read it : 

" We feel constrained further to say, that however desiroj- 
hie it may he to ameliorate the condition of the slaves in 
the Southern and Western States^ or to remove slavery 
FROM OUR COUNTRY, thesc objccts, WO are fully persuaded, 
can never be secured by ecclesiastical legislation. Much 
less can they be attained by those indiscriminate denuncia- 
tions against slave-holders, without regard to their character 
or circumstances, which have, to so great an extent, charac- 
terized the movements of the modern abolitionists, which, so 



284 DISCUSSION 

far from removing the evils complained of tend only to 
perpetuate and aggravate them. The apostles of Christ 
sought to ameliorate the condition of slaves, not by denounc- 
ing and excommunicating their masters, but by teaching 
both masters and slaves the glorious doctrines of the gos- 
pel, and enjoining upon each the charge of their relative 
duties. Thus only can the church of Christ, as such, now 
improve the condition of the slaves in our country." 

Did not the Assembly intend to say, and does not their 
language clearly express the idea, that it is desirable to 
ameliorate the condition of the slaves 1 and did they not 
immediately add, in precisely the same connection, and in 
the same sentence, " or to remove slavery from our coun- 
try?" There stand the words in the printed report; yet my 
accurate brother tells us, that it says nothing on the subject; 
contains not even an intimation of the faintest wish upon the 
subject ! I will not charge him with a deliberate purpose 
to misrepresent ; but the truth is, that he reads, and sees, 
and feels, and talks one-sided — he is one-sided all over. 
[Laughter.] 

The gentleman says, that my words look one way, and 
my actions the other — that I am anti-slavery in words, but 
pro-slavery in deeds. I now challenge him to refer to one 
single action of my life which shows that I am opposed to 
what I advocate in words, viz. : the gradual emancipation 
of every slave in the land ; or which can afford the least 
justification of his ungenerous charge. He cannot point to 
one ; unless, indeed, he chooses to consider the colonization 
of free blacks, with their own consent, opposed to emanci- 
pation. 

The gentleman is very indignant at the removal of Cas- 
sius M. Clay's paper from Lexington, which, he tells us, 
was done simply because of an unfortunate expression — a 
mere flourish, to turn a period. I know Mr. Clay. We 
were, for a short time, school-fellows ; and I regard him as 
a man of talents. But it is not true, that the tremendous ex- 
citement which resulted in the removal of his paper, was 



ON SLAVERY. 285 

caused by a single expression — a mere rhetorical flourish. 
It is truly a singular method of rounding a period, to tell 
slave-holders that there are spikes in the streets, and only 
panes of glass between them and your "smooth-skinned" 
wives and dausfhters ! The obvious meaning- of such Ian- 
guage is — "take care, or the slaves will rise and murder 
your families;" and the direct tendency of such language 
is, to produce a servile insurrection. 

But Mr. B. has great facility in concealing the odious 
features of abolitionism. When in the early part of this dis- 
cussion I read the intemperate and disgusting language of 
Foster on this subject, he told us, that some considered 
him insane. And when I read paragraphs from Duncan's 
pamphlet, republished by the Cincinnati Abolition Society, 
containing sentiments equally abhorrent, he coolly remark- 
ed, that he did not approve of every comma and sevii-colon 
in it ! I replied, that the justification of slave insurrections 
and murders were something more than either commas or 
semi-colons. And then he urged me just to let "father 
Duncan's pamphlet alone ; he was a very good man, and is 
gone to his rest." I shall not deny that he had piety; but 
whether he had or not, he published doctrines not only 
false, but of the most ruinous tendency; and the Cincinnati 
Abolition Society have endorsed them. That society, there- 
fore, stands before the public, chargeable with sending forth 
the most incendiary publications. The gentleman himself 
was most active, as he has informed us, in having it repub- 
lished. He and his society, therefore, are fully responsible 
for all its abominable sentiments ; for in having it reprinted 
they did not disclaim one sentiment it contains. But this by 
the way. 

I am not here to justify the course pursued toward Mr. 
Cla}'-. I cannot justify it ; but no man, who knows any- 
thing of human nature, can be surprised at it. In the arti- 
cles which produced the excitement, it cannot be denied, 
that there were sentiments of dangerous tendency ; and it is 
worse than vain for the gentleman to attempt to coyer them 



286 DISCUSSION 

over "by representing them as mere rhetorical flourishes with- 
out meaning. I was truly glad when Mr. Clay proposed to 
puhlish his paper, I did hope that he would calmly and 
prudently plead the cause of gradual emancipation, and 
that great good would result. Had he done so, I believe 
he might have gone forward without interruption ; but his 
language was violent and intemperate, and the result is 
known. Although I cannot justify the course pursued 
against him, I cannot condemn it without first condemning 
him as the aggressor. 

The gentleman says, I condemn abolitionists for helping 
runaway slaves, and yet I have said, I would not force them 
back. No — I have not condemned them simply for helping 
those who have run from their masters, but for sending emis- 
saries into the slave-holding States, to render the slaves dis- 
contented, and induce them to run. And I condemn them 
for publishing papers and pamphlets urging them to leave 
their masters, and even encouraging insurrection and mur- 
der. I condemn them for publishing addresses to the slaves, 
as did Gerrit Smith, and the New York anti-slavery nomi- 
nating convention, advising them not only to run from their 
masters, but to steal^ along their route, in the free as well as 
the slave States, " the horse, the boat, the food, the clothing," 
which they need ! Conduct and sentiments of this charac- 
ter are unscriptural and abominable. True, I do not regard 
it as my duty to be a catcher of fugitive slaves, or to force such 
to return to their masters ; but if I were to see a slave leav- 
ing a good master, I should advise him, as the angel advised 
Hagar, to return and faithfully discharge his duty. Most as- 
suredly I w'ould never be found engaged in the pitiful busi- 
ness of running a few slaves to Canada, to starve and freeze ; 
but the gentleman's fraternity will. [A laugh.] 
i I do not say, that every abolitionist will do this thing ; but 
I do say, that Duncan's pamphlet, endorsed by the Cincin- 
nati Abolition Society, urges it as the solemn duty of slaves 
to embrace the first opportunity to escape ; and Gerrit Smith 
and his party advise them not only to run, but to steal ! But 



ON SLAVERY. S87 

there are amongst abolitionists so many parties, that I do not 
well know what is orthodoxy and what is heterodoxy amongst 
them. 

I do, indeed, most strongly condemn both the principles 
and the conduct of the abolitionists ; but I have also uniform- 
ly condemned all violence toward them. When Mr. Bir- 
ney's press was destroyed in Cincinnati, I as editor of a 
religious paper, condemned the course of his opponents in 
lanffuaofe as strong- as I could command ; and I took the 
same course in regard to the violence against Lovejoy, in 
Illinois. I go for freedom of speech and of the press, even 
though in some instances, evils grow out of it. 

The brother says that I am anxious to put slavery on a 
par with marriage. Such, however, is not the fact, as I have 
repeatedly explained. I have said that he has not the right 
to brino- an argfument agfainst slave-holdingf, which would be 
of equal force against marriage. An argument that proves 
too much, proves nothing. This all logicians maintain, and 
the gentleman will not deny. 

He says, farther, that I affirmed that the apostles treated 
the relation of master and slave, and husband and wife, alike. 
I never said so. I have said that they did not treat the slave 
relation as the abolitionists do ; but enjoined upon master 
and slave the discharge of their respective duties. I did 
not say they treated the two relations alike. 

Having thus misrepresented my views he attempted to 
ridicule them by applying to the husband, Paul's language 
to the slave — "Art thou called being an husband, care not 
for it," &c. It is often easier to misrepresent, and then ridi- 
cule the sentiments of an opponent, than to prove them erro- 
neous. Slavery is an evil ; and liberty, to those who can ap- 
preciate and improve it, is a blessing. So poverty is an evil ; 
and to possess a competency of the good things of this world, 
is desirable. The language of Paul to the slave, suffering 
under an evil, might be addressed to a man suffering from 
poverty — "Art thou called, being poor, care not for it ; but if 
thou mayest be made comfortable, choose it rather," As a 



288 DISCUSSION . 

state of slavery is attended with many evils, its removal is 
desirable. So say I ; and so say all anti-slavery men, who 
arc not abolitionists. 

He reminds me, that when the Bible says that the slave 
shall go out, but his wife and his children shall remain and be 
his master's, it does not imply that the man was driven out 
of the house: he might "go out" of a state of bondage and 
yet remain in the house, and not be separated from his wife. 
But I did not say, that he was separated from his wife, but 
that although he went free, his wife and children remained 
slaves, the children following the condition of the mother, 
and not receiving liberty with the father. 

The gentleman attempts to explain the fact, that the wife 
of the servant who went out free, under certain circum- 
stances, did not go out with him, but remained in servitude, 
by stating it as one of the laws of Moses, that a servant 
bought of the heathen, if not converted in one year, was to 
be sent back to the heathen, but was not permitted to take 
with him his wife and children. There are two difficulties 
attending this explanation, viz: 1st. There is no such law 
as that of which he speaks. On what authority he has 
made the assertion, I cannot imagine. 2nd. The law of 
which I was speaking, relates to a Jew who had been sold 
for six years, not to a man bought from the heathen. If 
such a Jew married a servant of his purchaser, (one per- 
haps bought from the heathen) and had children by her ; at 
the end of the six years, he went out free ; but his wife, 
given him by his master, and the children born in the mas- 
ter's house, did not go out with him, but continued in servi- 
tude. Since, therefore, the law in question related exclusively 
to Jews, (not at all to servants bought of pagans) and to a 
term of service of six years, not of one, the gentleman's re- 
ply is a perfect failure. 

I shall not detain the audience to discuss the views of 
Clarkson on slavery ; because it is unnecessary. But let it be 
remembered, that the British Parliament adopted the plan of 
West India enaancipation, not at the suggestion of Clarkson, 



ON SLAVERY. S89 

"but under the influence of a public sentiment created by 
tlie great body of Philanthropists and Christians in England 
and Scotland. Were they abolitionists ? Were slave-holders 
denounced, without regard to character or circumstances, as 
heinous sinners? Were the churches called upon to ex- 
clude all the slave-holders from their communion? These 
questions must be answered in the negative. The Christians 
and churches in England and Scotland generally, believed 
no such doctrine, and therefore resorted to no such practice. 
No man was excommunicated simply because he was a 
slave-holder. The slaves in the West Indies, then, were not 
emancipated by the principles of modern abolitionists, but 
by the principles of anti-slavery men whom they denounce. 
Under the influence of such men the British Parliament 
paid to the owners of slaves twenty millions of pounds, and 
placed the slaves under an apprenticeship of seven years. 

I ought to notice, for a moment, the gentleman's remark 
that I represented Mr. Duncan as crazy. I did not say so. 
He excused the intemperate language and abominable senti- 
ments of Foster on the ground that he v/as partially derang- 
ed. In reply to this, I said that his friend Mr. Duncan was 
at least as crazy as Foster, for his pamphlet contained precisely 
the same sentiments. But I hold neither of them to have been 
insane, nor do I charge the Cincinnati Abolition Society with 
being madmen because they sanctioned and reprinted Dun- 
can's book. All I said, and now say, is that the one writer was 
as much a "crazy man as the other, and both were about as 
sane as men can be, who hold the doctrines of abolitionism. 

I have proved by language too plain to be misunderstood, 
that Hagar was the slave of Sarah ; nor will all the gentle- 
man has said or can say by way of ridicule, prove that she 
was any thing else. That she was a hondiooman^ a slave, 
and that she fled from her mistress, because she punished 
her, are facts plainly stated in the Bible. If she was free, 
there was no sense in her running into the wilderness from her 
mistress. Nor was the angel a " ruffian " because he ad- 
vised and directed her to return. He well knew, that her 
19 



290 DISCUSSION. 

condition was far better in the family of Abraham, than 
in the wilderness. The running off of slaves does no: 
always better their condition. A man residing at Vicks- 
buro-h had a slave who left him, and succeeded in get- 

to 

ting safely to Canada ; but he was so far from experiencing 
the advantages he had expected, and which had been prom- 
ised by his abolition advisers, that he voluntarily returned to 
his master. Other fugitive slaves have done the same thing. 
Our friends may yet learn, that by tempting slaves to run 
away they often place them in a worse condition, than that 
from M^hich they have induced them to escape. 

I will close this speech with a very brief recapitulation of 
the evidence proving the bondmen bought of the heathen by 
the Jews, to have been slaves, in the proper sense of the 
word. 1. They were bought with money. When the gen- 
tleman reads in the newspapers, that a certain man in Ken- 
tucky bought a servant with money ; does he not at once 
conclude, that the servant bought is a slave ? 2. The mas- 
ter was permitted by Moses' law to enforce obedience on 
the part of the servant by chastisement ; and the reason 
given why the master should not be punished, if the ser- 
vant survived a day or two after the chastisement, was, that 
*'Ae ^5 his money .^^ Here the property relation is recog- 
nized, and is regarded as a protection of the slave, and as evi- 
dence that it was not the design of the master to kill him ; 
for it is not to be supposed, that in any ordinary case a man 
would deliberately aim to kill the servant who was his mon- 
ey. Such are the facts as they stand recorded in the word of 
God. The gentleman may, if he is so disposed, pronounce 
this law cruel and inhuman ; but he cannot erase it from the 
volume which he professes to regard as inspired by God. 
Is such language as we find here employed, applicable to 
hired servants ? Do men in Ohio reo:ard their hired servants 
as their money ? Do they claim the right to enforce obedi- 
ence by chastisement with the rod. 3. The word used, and 
translated 56 ri'ttTi^ and bondman is the proper Hebrew word 
for slave ; it is the word the Hebrews uniformly used, when 



ON SLAVERY. 201 

they spoke of slaves. If the gentleman should deny this, 
will he please to tell us what is the proper word for slave in 
the Hebrew language? I affirm, that if the word cved does 
not mean slave, the Hebrews, though surrounded by slavery, 
had no word in their language by which they could desig- 
nate it. 4. The Hebrew has a word which definitely signi- 
fies a hired servant ; and that word is placed in contrast 
with the eved or bondman. The salcir is the hired servant; 
and the eved is the bondman or slave. 5. Finally those 
servants are declared to be the possession of their owners, 
snd inheritence of their children — language never employed 
concerning hired servants, but constantly employed with re- 
gard to land and other property. 

The fact, then, is clearly established, if language can es- 
tablish it, that God did recognize the relation of master and 
slave as, under the circumstances, lawful, and did give ex- 
press permission to the Jews to purchase slaves from the 
heathen, and hold them. To understand the language on 
which I have been remarking, as descriptive of hired serv- 
ants, is to disregard the plainest principles of language. 
The gentleman must admit, that God gave the. Jews per- 
mission, under certain circumstances, to form the relation 
which he denounces as in itself sinful ; or he must deny 
that the Old Testament is the word of God. {Time expired. 



Friday Evening, 7 o'clock. 

[MR. BLANCHAR,d's ELEVENTH SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen Moderators^ and Gentlemen and Ladies^ Fellow- 
Citizens : 

At the commencement of my remarks, it is proper for me 
to say that I render cordial thanks to the brother opposed to 
me, for his kindness in consenting to adjourn this discussion 
till Monday. I have asked this, in consequence of my 
health, which is infirm from a cold contracted a few days 
before the debate began. 



292 DISCUSSION 

In my last speech of the afternoon, I said that the aboli- 
tion of slavery in the British colonies, was the fruit of the 
principles of abolitionism : and my quoted proofs fully sus- 
tained my proposition. My brother objects that the abolition 
of West India slavery was not immediate, but that an ap- 
prenticeship of seven years was substituted for slavery. 
This is partly true, and partly erroneous. In Antigua, and 
the Bermudas, emancipation was immediate, and took in- 
stant effect, August 1st, 1834. It is true, that against the 
Avishes of many leaders of the abolition movement in Great 
Britain, Parliament refused to grant immediate abolition 
throughout the colonies, and substituted a clumsy appren- 
ticeship of seven years, Vv-hich, however, worked so badly, 
that they were glad to abolish it two years before the legal 
time expired. 

JNly friend also tells you that a hundred thousand dollars 
were paid as a compensation to the owners for their slaves. 
This," also, was not in accordance with the views of many 
leading abolitionists. They said that if slavery had been 
profitable, the slave-holders had enjoyed the profits of it long 
enough — if not profitable, abolition was no sacrifice to them. 
They, however, were willing to accept the bill enacted by 
Parliament, seeing it struck out at once, the principle of 
chattelism, and speedily resulted in perfect emancipation. 

I now call your attention to what I call the direct argu- 
ment (and all my arguments are from the Bible, or are intended 
to be) to show that the relation of master and slave is a sin- 
ful relation. I have showed (I think) slave-holding to be " in 
itself sinful," which was the first part of the question. The 
latter part of the question respects the relation. I wish 
therefore, to show that the relation, — not the practice, only, 
of slave-holding, but the relation of master and slave is sin- 
ful. I have duly advertised the audience of my one and a 
half hours' speech in the Old Testament servitude and a 
speech of similar length on the New Testament view of 
slavery. Mr. Rice will have an opportunity to reply to 



ON SLAVERY. 293 

them, for he has the closing speeches, both afternoon and 
evening, in each day of debate. 

Now I beg you to bear in mind, m.y object, now in hand, is 
not to arraign every man who is sinfully or unfortunately 
connected with the slave system. But if I show the relation 
to be a sinful relation, it will follow that it is the duty of 
every church to tell its candidates for membership, to come out 
of it, that God may receive them. A human relation is 
that coiniexioti between two 'persons which creates mutual 
rights and obligations. As the relation of husband and wife. 
That is based upon a certain principle, and vests certain 
claims in the wife upon the husband, and certain claims in 
the husband upon the wife ; and these rights and obligations 
take root in the principle which lies at the foundation of the 
relation. 

Let us analyze this thing which is called a relation. There 
are three things constituting a relation. 1. The principle on 
which it is based. 2. The claims which it creates ; And 3. 
The obligations Jt imposes. If we consider any good and 
wholesome relation, say a partnership in business, we find first 
the principle in which it rests, is the mutual wants of men. 
One man may know more than the other ; the other may be 
physically stronger than he. Their relation rests on this natur- 
al foundation ; the mutual dependence of men upon one anoth- 
er, and because it rests on this true principle, the relation, thus 
formed, gives rise to certain claims which are just claims, 
and certain obligations, which are right obligations. Mar- 
riage is susceptible of the same analysis. The principle on 
which it rests, is the mutual affection of the opposite sexes. 
This is a natural principle. God laid the foundation of 
marriage in the constitution of man. He is the author of 
nature, or rather nature is the rule by which God works. 
The claims of the husband on the wife, and of the wife upon 
her husband are right and just, because they are rooted in a 
right relation. So of the relation and mutual claims of pa- 
rent and child. But look now at the relation of a gypsy 
to the child which she has stolen ; that is, the relation of 



294 DISCUSSION 

false parentage. The principle of the relation is wrong at 
bottom. The relation is forced and unnatural. It is un- 
warranted by scripture, having no foundation in the word 
of God. Hence it can give rise to no just claims nor obli- 
gations, because the relation itself is void in equity, ab initio^ 
and, whatever claims exist, are rooted in a relation which is 
false. 

Now, take the relation of master and slave, and test it by 
this same analysis. Has God fitted one man to be properii/j 
and adapted another to be the propertif-holder of men 1 is 
one man formed for fetters and a yoke, and another with a 
whip in his hand, and a spur on his heel % Will my brother 
tell me, as the southern defenders of slavery argue in Con- 
gress, that the wise are the natural owmers of the foolish, 
and the strong of the weak. Mr. Pickens, of South Caroli- 
na, stated in his place, in Congress, that " when once, society 
is pressed dow7i into its classifications^ one class will always 
hold the other as ^property, iii some form or otherP Is that 
doctrine to find advocates in free Ohio? Sirs, if it be true 
tliat the strong are born to own the weak, wh}?^ not put the 
weak slave-holder into slavery, and make the strong slave 
his master? If the unwise and the untalented are the 
natural slaves of the wise and capable, the moment when, by 
causes inseparable from slavery, the owner becomes the 
slave's inferior, that moment your rule gives the slave of 
strong and vigorous mind and athletic muscles, dominion 
ov^er the master of weak intellect and emasculate person ; and 
I't is w^ell understood that slavery deteriorates both the mind 
and body of the owner class. If the silly and weak are to 
be enslaved by the wise and strong, God help the cripple, 
the idiot, and the weak-minded child ! No, gentlemen, no, 
never. I will never admit the doctrine of the inequality of 
man, by nature, while I am told in God's word, that " He 
has made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all 
the face of the earthP And if of " one blood^^ then equal^ 
because one. 

The doctrine that the relation of slavery is an unnatural 



ON SLAVERY. 295 

relation, is not a new doctrine. It is laid down in the code 
of Justinian, which has been the fountain and spring-head 
of the civil law since A. D. 527. This code declares that 
slavery has no foundation in natural justice. '- Servitus 

EST CONSTITUTIO JURIS GENTIUM, qua quis doniinO CONTRA 

NATURAM suhjiciturP — {Just code, L. 1. Title 3.) — which, 
translated, is "Slavery is a constitution of the law of nations, 
whereby a man is subjected to a foreign master against 
natural right:' Every lawyer knows that " contra natur- 
am" means against natural equity. And slavery is said to 
be a creation of ^^ positive law^' because the relation has no 
archetype in nature, and hence, all the claims arising out of 
it, perish, because rooted in a vicious relation, and all its 
obligations are void, because its claims are unjust ; that is, 
the relation is wrong in itself. 

Now, again: The relation is sinful, because every act 
which it warrants, is something which my brother himself 
calls sinful. I know well what I say, and I Avill prove it. 
I say, the relation itself is sinful, because every act which it 
loarrants is a sinful act. What acts does it warrant? 

1. It warrants the taking of a man's labor without wages. 
My brother has almost said that the master is bound in jus- 
tice to give his slave wages. He ought to say so. But 
what becomes of slavery when you compel wages ? It has 
perished and the slave becomes a hired servant. Slavery 
excludes wages, and if withholding Avages is sin, then is 
slave-holding sin. 

2. Another act which this relation of master and slave 
warrants, is the separation of man and wife. My brother 
says, he is opposed to that. So when he has given the slave- 
holder a property power over mankind, by the permission 
of God, the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost ; (for he does 
this if he proves slave-holding not sinful ;) he then turns 
round and forbids him to use the power which he has thus 
given. The first property-holding act which the slave-holder 
puts forth, my friend tells him is an abuse of the rela- 
tion. I argue from that, that the power to hold slaves— the 



296 DISCUSSION 

relation itself, is sinful. Can the fountain be pure, if all the 
streams flowing- from it are corrupt? Suppose a man has a 
spring on his land, from which flows water which kills the 
grass of the sod which it irrigates, and the cattle which drink 
of it. I tell him his spring is poisonous ; and he admits that 
all the water which comes from it is poison, but stoutly de- 
nies that the spring is a poisonous spring, and yet agrees to 
stop up the well and prevent its flowing, in order to prevent 
its doing damage. He certainly admits his spring to be 
poisonous. So I say that the relation which cannot be car- 
ried out in practice without abuse, is an abusive relation. It 
is abusive in itself. What sort of a relation is that which 
cannot be acted out without sin, unless it be a sinful rela- 
tion ? Assuredly, it is not a holy relation. A smuggler 
may be a man who has never yet handled contraband goods, 
yet, being connected with smugglers — standing in a crimi- 
nal relation, he ought to come out of it. He may say : " I 
have never run goods across the line." But you tell him ; 
" you are in a wicked relation, you ought to come out of it." 
So I say to the slave-holder ; lay down the mischievous pow- 
er which you have assumed. Come out of the relation, for 
it is a relation wrong in itself Who does not see that, that 
is a poisonous fountain, which, to prevent its pestilent and 
destructive eflects, must be perpetually and forever damned 
up ? 

My brother declares for the gradual abolition of slavery ; 
he would kill it ofl' by degrees. But why abolish slave- 
holding gradually, unless it is unjust? and if it be unjust, 
why continue it one hour ? Do you not see that in admit- 
tins: that it oun^ht to be abolished, he admits it to be wrong ? 

But he will have us to abolish safely. Let us lop ofl'one 
abuse after another. Let us pluck out one strand after an- 
other until this scourge of the human race is taken wholly 
away. But why, when he arises to demolish one bad thing 
in it, does he not strike off the whole ? is not the whole thinof 
bad ? Most evidently, the same reasons which require abo- 
lition at all call for it now. In the name of the God of truth 



ON SLA\TERT. 297 

and in the living light of truth, I say, abolish it at once if it 
be wicked. Why should injustice live one hour ? There 
is another inquiry of serious practical moment here. Why 
do those men who say they are opposed to slavery, and de- 
sire its speedy gradual abolition, stand so well with incor- 
rigible slave-holders ? My brother boasts that he preaches 
to slave-holders, enjoys their full confidence, and yet that he 
is opposed to slavery. Yes, somebody has committed an 
immense amount of sin in the slave -system, if we could come 
at it. There is a forbidden part of the hog, but nobody has 
found out where or which it is. He is opposed to slavery. 

But, if he "is actually opposed to slavery, how does his 
doctrine happen to be acceptable to every one who is irre- 
coverably wedded in the slave-holding interest? The an- 
swer is : — Because it justifies slavery as a divine institution. 
It can be no other. 

You may read his allegation to the soul-driver at the head 
of the slave cofHe ; " that God permitted his ancient people 
to hold slaves." " Ah," says the driver, " that is the doctrine 
for me. I am one of Abraham's descendants in line direct. 
I am the good old patriarch's agent. My employer stands 
in the place of principal, and I as agent, and we shall both 
go to Abraham's bosom together." Oh ! gentlemen, the 
reason why his doctrine is so popular with the slave men, 
is, that they well know that if ministers give them God's per' 
mission to hold men as 'property, they will easily get man's 
permission to use them as such. That is the reason that 
my brother's popularity will carry the book South. Slavery 
never will be put down in this way. My brother is pro-slavery, 
and they know it. He gives them God's permission to hold 
slaves, and that is all they want of him. He tells them they 
may hold slaves without sin, but tells us that he is opposed 
to their using their slaves as their property. He puts a sad- 
dle on a man's back, and the bit in his mouth, vaults the 
slave-holder into the saddle, and as he places the reins in his 
hand, cries, " Easy, sir, I never meant you should ride." [A 
laugh.] 



298 DISCUSSION 

I have also proved slave-holding relation sinful, because 
where slavery goes into a family at one door, every God- 
ordained relation goes out at the other. I know my friend 
tells you that it is not slavery that separates man and wife ; 
that they are not separated till the master sells the husband 
into Georgia, and the wife to Alabama. Is it the mere pla- 
cing a man and woman at a distance, that dissolves marriage ? 
Is it miles and leagues that tear and separate heart from 
heart, whom God has pronounced one ? No ! It is not dis- 
tance. It is slavery. A relation which has no sanction in 
Heaven, and will have noplace on earth when God's "king- 
dom is come, and his will done on earth as it is in heaven."' 

I say, therefore, that when slavery goes to a house, and 
constitutes the husband property, the wife property, and the 
child property ; every God-ordained relation has perished 
out of that house. All that is wanting to complete the ruin 
13 the will of the master to separate them actually, as they 
are virtually taken apart by the slave-making statute. 

I have one more point to make, and then, after adverting 
to my friend's golden rule argument, I shall proceed in the 
course which I have prescribed. 

I will here make one observation, which is this : Though 
I might, as my friend suggests, flinch in the trial, if actu- 
ally called to lay down my life ; yet, I solemnly aver that 
I should esteem my life a profitable outlay, if by death I 
could convince every person in this assembly of the truth 
which I am here to sustain. I am at least sincere in this. 
Though I. will not say but that if put to the test I might 
shrink from the sacrifice, as many good men have done. 
But, Kentuckians, I call upon you ; I address you with the 
utmost solemnity as men, as men who are soon to die. 1 
beseech you, let us reason together. Take what course you 
may in practice, I know you must abhor, you cannot help 
abhorring slavery in your understandings and hearts. Its 
foul deformities are so obvious in every joint and limb and 
feature, that when once your attention is fairly directed to 
them, you can never, go where you will, arid do what you may, 



ON sLAVEr^Y. 299 

shake off your impressions of disgust. Do not make me 
your enemy because I tell you the truth. I speak in the 
spirit of humility. I am willing to wash your feet. My 
master did the like, and I am content if I may but be as he. 
I am sincere and solemnly earnest in the position I take. I 
am willing to sacrifice to it whatever I must. I did not em- 
brace this cause when a young man, and incur obloquy on 
account of it, because I loved ignominy and reproach. I was 
not then reckoned inferior to my equals in age, in scholar- 
ship and the hope of usefulness, and I have not been in- 
sensible to the desire of popularity with good men. But in 
the course I have taken I followed what I thought my duty, 
I and I well knew what I was to meet in discharging it. 
While yet a student, I was preaching in a church where the 
salary was a thousand dollars, and where to oppose slaveiy 
was to be unacceptable. But I told them I was an aboli- 
tionist. I knew no pettifogging distinctions by which to 
reconcile the conscience to slavery, while condemning it in 
words; and I determined to take the consequences of a 
straightforward and honest utterance of correct principles, 
derived, not from collating the opinions of men, but by listening 
' to the voice of God. Do not therefore, make me your enemy 
because I speak plainly, and tell you the truth. My labors 
are almost done in Cincinnati. I am about to leave the 
church of my first labor and first love, to live in an mterior 
town of Illinois, w^here I have little to expect from your ap- 
probation or esteem. But I beseech you, Kentuckians, to 
remember David Rice; to remember Barlow, and listen 
with candor and patience while I seek to show you, that, if 
slave-holding is not sinful then I can justify all those acts 
which my brother calls the ^'-abuses of slavery'^ and prove 
them innocent and good. 

My first projwsition is this ; if slave-holding is not sinful, 
then kidnapping is right. For what is the moral difference % 
Suppose one man snares and steals your game, and another 
man knowing the fact, eats it ; where is the difference in their 
guilt ? Now the kidnapper is the hunter for the slave-holder, 



300 DISCUSSION 

if slave-holding is not sinful, the slave-trade is not sinful, for 
certainly the slave-holder is a particeps criminis. He is a 
partner in the concern, for what are kidnapping and the slave 
trade to slave-holding, but the jackal to the lion. They are the 
lion's providers, and the slave holder has the lion's share of ihe 
spoil, the largest part of the profits. You will not find a slave- 
driver but will tell you the slave-holder is as wicked as he. 
" They curse us, and abuse us, and w^e must bear the odium 
of this business," says the slave-driver, " but when they 
want slaves to fill their gangs, they accost us politely and 
offer us a second glass: — yet they affect to call us pirates, 
and while they are regaling themselves with their segars, 
their mint juleps, the product of the labor of their slaves, 
they can talk about 'the wicked soul-driver.' Now where 
is the equality and justice of this." Tell me, in God's 
name, is it not true either that slave-holding is sinful, or the 
slave trade justified? He heaps abuse upon his own ser- 
vants. He betrays the hand that feeds him. We furnish 
oil for the wheels of the system, and they curse the hand 
that brings it. Truly the slave-holder 

" Atones for sins he is inclined to, 
"By damning those he has no mind to." 

There is no reply to a soul-driver, speaking thus, but to 
confess that he utters truth. But you not only justify kid- 
napping and the slave-trade, by denying that slavery is not 
sinful, but also all the other ^^ abuses of slavery ^^ as my 
brother calls them ; such as the parting of man and wife. 

This is my second point, under this head. God has made 
one man to be the husband of one woman. " For this cause 
he shall forsake father and mother and shall cleave unto his 
wife" — not to his wives. But the slave-holder, who has 
the husband or the wife for his property, can say, give me 
the husband or the wife, and none can gainsay him, simply 
because property is his property; this, slavery authorizes 
him to do, and defends him in doing ; thus putting asunder 
whom God has joined. Now, to rebut this, you are gravely 
told,J'this is an abuse of slavery, not slavery itself." But, 



ON SLAVERY. 301 

I ask, by what rule docs a man who receives slaves, under- 
stand the nature of the purchase or gift made him. Sup- 
pose a man, dying, bequeaths slaves to his heirs, and they 
wish to know, being strangers to slavery, what is the nature 
of the gift; what do they do? They can go nowhere but to 
the slave code. And what do they see in the slave code ? 
Why, the chattelizing statute ; and they then say, we get 
these slaves as our trope rty, by these laws. My brother 
Rice, standing by, tells them, that it is not wrong — not sin- 
ful — to hold them. Now Dr. Rice gives them these slaves 
as their property, and yet, in his argument here, he annexes 
a condition to it, destroying its value as property, viz. : that 
they shall not sell the man without his wife and children, &c. 
Such ethics remind one of Hudibras's philosopher, who, 

" By metaphysics, could divide, 
A hair 'twixt North and North-west side." 

A sort of moral bodkin which he can thrust in between 
the theory and practice of the same thing, which are all of a 
piece, and separating them where there is neither fissure nor 
seam, justify, christianize, baptise the principle of slavery into 
the name of God ; and yet condemn every part of the prac- 
tice as an abuse. [Applause.] 

Sirs ; this is the very anchor ground of the friends of slave- 
ry, and I mean with God's help, to test it thoroughly and 
well, and see if it is safe. My third point is this : — If 
slave-holding is not sinful^ then the separation of parent and 
child is not sinful. The same argument lies to show this. 
My brother gives the slave-holder permission to hold his hu- 
man property^ but affects to deny the right to use it. His 
ground is, slave-holding is not sinful, but certain laws, regu- 
lating slavery, are : but the slave-holder says he does not 
understand this sort of gift. You teach us that it is " not 
sinful to hold slaves as property." Seeing then that slavery 
itself is right, why couple it with a condition which destroys 
its value ? Why, like Macbeth's witches ; 

" Keep the word of promise to the ear, 
" And break it to the heart :— " 



302 _ DISCUSSION 

"Why abuse men by giving- them a right in theory, which 
you deny them in practice ? Why insult the slave-holder 1 
God knows he has a hard enough time of it with all the evils 
of the system working with his own corruptions, and those 
of his slaves. Let us rather pray for them, — and be faith- 
ful to them. Why not be frank and say to them "You are 
certainly sinning; come now out of your sin and find peace." 
This is the way we treat other vices. Shall we cower be- 
fore this difficulty? Has this one evil a claim above all 
others ? Nay, rather why abuse slave-holders by giving 
them God's permission to hold slaves as property, and de- 
nying them the use of that property ? 

Suppose, in illustration, that a man sells another a herd of 
cattle, and after sale, annexas a condition that he shall never 
sell the dam without a whole string of young cattle, would 
not the buyer justly hold himself insulted, and imposed 
upon 1 Would not such a sale be but a different phase of 
the one principle on which Dr. Rice's whole argument rests ; 
vindicating slave-holding, yet pretending to oppose separating 
families ? Do you not see the palpable absurdity of the 
doctrine which he has been teaching ever since this debate 
opened ? A slave-holder may be honestly opposed to sell- 
ing slaves away from their families, and while his circum- 
stances are good, he may be able to act up to his principle. 
But by-and-by his sons gamble, his daughters die after ex- 
pensive sickness, and he is reduced to poverty — and he says 
to himself, " There's Betsey, I must sell her, and there's Jane, 
I must let her go also :" and so his slaves go one by one, to 
pay honest debts, and keep off starvation. Now, can you 
excommunicate him for this, and yet tell him he had a prop- 
erty right to those slaves. Why should you turn him out 
of a church conducted upon Dr. Rice's principle, that slave- 
holding is not sin ? Now were I a member of such a church 
he should never be put out by my voice. I would plead for 
him till I died. I would say, "Hands off!" You are 
wrong : You have first taught him that he had the right, 
and now you would punish him for using it. You are guilty 



ON SLAVERY. 803 

of the most arrant hypocrisy in so doing." Meet the ques- 
tion like men. " Slavery or no slavery." Come out honor- 
ably and tell the slave-holder. " Sir you cannot commune 
with the church while you hold slaves : or else cease from the 
wretched pretence that you would excommunicate for sell- 
ing slaves irrespective of family ties. It is not wrong to do 
so, if SLAVE-HOLDING IS NOT SIN. I would then say to the 
slave-holder ; I will then help you. I will part with my 
coat. I will sell my property and divide it with you ; you 
shall not want while I have, provided you first do justice by 
freeing your slaves.'* 

No : this does not suit them. They choose to " put evil 
for good, and good for evil, light for darkness and darkness 
for light." They forsake the way of just and holy and 'plam 
pri7iciples, for the sake of a wicked practice — plain princi- 
ples for the sake of a wretched practice which one class are un- 
willing to condemn because another is unwilling to give up. 

I show, in the next place, that if slave-holding is not sin- 
ful, the working of men ivithout wages is right. What does 
Dr. Rice say in his pamphlet. " If I buy a man he is 
MINE, so far as his services are concerned ;" though he adds, 
" and I am solemnly bound to treat him as a man," that is, 
as MY man I Treat him how 1 Why, if he is mine, he 
must work for me. His services are mine because he is 
mine. (See Rice's Lectures, page 17.) 

This is put forth by him as a well considered doctrine, be- 
cause it was first delivered at the first Presbyterian church, 
and afterwards published. I should not have stood here 
against him if he had not delivered those lectures. I refu- 
sed when they first came to me, to enter on this discussion 
with a Presbyterian minister, because I felt for the honor of 
Christianity — the Christian ministry, and the ark of my God. 
But when I saw him come out in public as the charioteer in 
the very front of the car of despotism, as it rides over the 
wrecks of human beings, I determined to withstand him and 
his error if I died in the gap: [Applause.] 

If slave-holding be not sinful, though it seems hard that the 



304 DISCUSSION 

hand made hard with toil should not feel the cash it earns, yet 
it is not wrong to withhold wages from the laborer, but right 
perfectly right. When a boy, I. heard of the effects of the em- 
bargo law in eastern towns and cities. The hammer of the 
smith was idle. The chisel of the artizan was not heard upon 
the wall. The cry of the children was heard for bread, when 
three mouths were to be fed and but two mouthfuls to give 
them. It seemed hard that the laborer could not be fed by 
his toil : for the wages principle — that " The laborer is w^or- 
thy of his hire," blazes from every page of God's Book 
which is a wall of fire around the rights of the poor. But 
there is no hardship, no injustice in withholding wages — if 
slave-holding be not sin. 

My brother has told us that slaves do not earn more than 
they receive. They should be the judges of that them- 
selves. We have no right to judge for them what is best for 
their interest. 

If I know how to manage property better than my neigh- 
bor, does it give me a right to take the management of his 
property ? If I know how to manage his wife or his child, 
better than he ; does that entitle me to take possession of 
and manage them ? 

My friend's doctrine is that they should be paid no wagps, 
except what masters see fit to allow them, excluding hiring 
and fixed wages ; but the Bible says, " the laborer is ivortky 
of HIS HIRE." The daughter of Pharaoh did not dare com- 
pel a Hebrew servant to nurse Moses for her without promi- 
sing her wages. This common, house-hold equity ; this sim- 
ple justice to the laboring poor, blazes on every page of the 
Bible from Genesis to Revelation, yet he vaunts his ea- 
gerness to bring this discussion to the words of Holy 
Scripture, as if that blessed book contained no justice for 
men compelled to work without hire! Oh thou bles- 
sed charter of human hope ! Thou sweet pole-star to the 
voyager of life! (addressing the Bible which lay on the 
stand before the speakers,) thou bright beam of the ineffa- 
ble effulgence of God ! would they dive into thy glorious 



ON SLAVERY. S05 

brig-htiiess to draw from this charter of human liberty, their 
title deed of slavery ? Gracious and compassionate God ! 
they vaunt that they will thrust their hand into this blessed 
book, (holding- up the Bible,) to fetch hence fetters for our 
feet, and manacles for our minds ! And are these the 
vaunted triumphs of all my brother's Hebrew and Greek ? 

" Oh star-eyed science, hast thou wandered there, 
To bring us back these tidings of despair !" 

Then, let the laurel and olive branch be laid aside, and 
all the insignia of erudition be changed : let the scholar put 
off his cap, and the professor his gown. Henceforth, let the 
scepter of science be a whip, and her chaplet a chain ! 

But shall they prosper who do such things? Never! 
Never ! ! That impious hand which is thrust into God's 
word to bring out chains and fetters for our race, shall yet be 
as the hand of Jeroboam, at the altar of Bethel, when he 
stretched it forth against the prophet of God. And the day 
cometh, when the light daily increasing from this blessed 
page, piercing and dispersing the mists they have cast 
around it, shall so dazzle and confound their vision, that 
they shall grope at Reason's noonday, and, like Elymas 
the sorcerer, " go about seeking some one to leadjhem by the 
hand." Oh, if she were but here, who once washed her 
Master's feet, she would wash out their foul aspersions from 
this His book, with her tears, and wipe them away with 
the hairs of her head! Let us emulate her wisdom and 
copy the piety of her example. 

I now, inly imploring aid, proceed in proving that, if slave- 
holding be not sinful, then there is no abuse, nor law, nor 
anything sinful about it. And my next point is, that, if 
slave-holding he 7iot si7ifuJ, the master has a right to lohip 
the slave inhumanly, till he submits, as the Kentucky 
synod, already quoted, states, slavery takes away from the 
slave all right to hold property, all chance of character, all 
the ties of family, and all the motives by which God meant 
to propel the human machinery of free agents, and substi- 
tutes force in their stead. Thus far, all is sinless, says Dr. 
20 



306 DISCUSSION. 

Rice. But he is opposed to anything cruel or wrong in the 
masters' treatment of slaves, or in the laws regulating slavery. 
I know that in words, lie does not mean to stop the wheels 
of God's administration over mind and intellect, and cut off 
His action upon man as a free agent ; but this is what he 
does in giving permission to hold men as slaves, thus strip- 
ping their souls of God's motives. He only proposes to 
take away the water that turns the wheel, not to destroy the 
wheel itself; not to brutify the slave, but strip his soul of 
human motives. Aye, but when you have taken away ail 
other motives to exertion, and still wish action, you have left 
only force by which to produce it. And when you have 
put the whip in the place of God's motives to human action, 
what can you do with your man but the same that is done 
to a horse — whip him, or sell him ? The man is become an 
animal. 

Bartholomew Las Casas, under that doctrine of expediency 
which has been the dry-rot and curse of the church ever 
since ; reasoning against Indian slavery, was induced, it is 
said, to sanction the enslavement of the Africans, because 
he thought the curse of Canaan had fallen upon them, 
as the progeny of Ham. All the other comimentators 
who have defended slavery upon Bible principles, have 
adopted more or less of his ideas. They all hang to each 
other, each copying from his predecessor, like the Welsh- 
men in the story, who, in passing a bridge, saw the moon 
shining in the water, and fancying it a green cheese, they 
took hold of each others legs to form a string to reach it, 
and when the upper one gave way, they all fell into the 
water together. 

Sirs, you can do nothing with a slave, after you hold him, 
but whip him, till he obeys. A Baptist minister said, in con- 
vention, " sir, ive have to he cruelJ^ If I were a slave, you 
would have to be cruel to me. A command against my 
conscience I would not obey. I would die in the furrow, 
before I would be driven like the ox. A man in the lowest 
slavery, still retains a spark of that Promethean fire which 



ON SLAVERY. 307 

distinguishes men from brutes. As long as he retains 
the intellectual image of his God, slavery has not entirely- 
stamped it out; and hence cruelty follows, and is part of 
slavery, as murder is of robbery on the highway. 

I make one point more. If slavery he not sinful^ it is 
not sinful to murder slaves^ under certain circumstances. 
This you may consider a strong assertion. But I desire to 
be put upon trial upon it ; and I pledge myself to make it 
good. Suppose there are given me fifty slaves. I am mer- 
ciful. I wish to do the best I can for them. God has cast 
my lot in Mississippi or Alabama, whither, Cassius M. Clay 
tells you, all the rascally slaves are sold — all those who 
cannot be kept under proper discipline in the upper country. 
My heart bleeds for the conscientious slave-holder, whose 
lot is cast in the extreme South. It is true, though that does 
not excuse them, that British policy kept standing, if it did 
not originate, southern slavery. It is true, also, that con- 
scientious slave-masters are in terrible difficulty. In Mary- 
land and Virginia, a part of the value of slave-property con- 
sists in slave-breeding for the South. So, in a late paper, 
says the junior editor of the L40uisville Journal. Now, 
then, suppose I have fifty slaves in Alabama or Mississippi, 
ihe Botany-Bay of the American slave-system, and my slaves 
are men who are made brutes by slavery, and rendered fierce 
by oppression. I say to them, some morning, 'come, boys, to 
work.' One is lazy and idle, and refuses to work. When 
I order him to march, he stands up, and, in presence of the 
gang, gives me words. I have been kind to him ; but he 
resists. I threaten him with the whip ; for if I do not en- 
force obedience, in this instance, I breed insurrection. Be- 
sides, the slave-holders around me would not allow of such 
dangerous mercy. They will say, I am a poltroon, and a 
deserter of southern institutions. They will not endure my 
neighborhood, unless I use force. Say I, ' You must sub- 
mit ;' and my slave replies, " I will not." What have I left 
but to raw-hide him till he yields ? Well, I roll up my 
sleeves and go at it : the negro runs into a stream or thicket, 



308 DISCUSSION 

turns round, and curses me to my teeth. What am I to do ? 
The penal code does not help me. There is no other Botany- 
Bay, no Georgia or Carolina, south of me, whither to sell him. 
I have undertaken the care of rascals myself; there is no peni- 
tentiary for slaves : they are not allowed to go there — if they 
were, they would be so thickly crowded that their arms and 
legs would stick out through the prison grates. The criminal 
code, therefore, does not allow imprisonment to slaves. There 
is no resort left but to kill him, uriless he surrenders ; and 
slave-holders do it ! I can show you plenty of instances, 
where masters have killed their slaves, under similar cir- 
cumstances ; and there is no candid slave-holder, of informa- 
tion, but will tell you, that it must and may be done. They 
call it pure self-defence, though the negro has not raised a 
hand ! The system drives you to that extremity. The root 
of the evil lies not in the killing, but back of it. You can- 
not keep up discipline without it ; and hence, to murder is 
right, according to the laio of slavery, and the teaching of 
Dr. Rice, that slave-holdiiig is not sin. If you give me 
God's permission to be a slave-holder, then you give me his 
permission to take all the steps necessary to enforce the 
powers with which you have clothed me, and 

" Things bad begun make strong themselves by ill." 

When once you have, by your teaching, saddled the sys- 
tem of slave-holding upon me, you lay me under obliga- 
tions to carry out that system, by such means as the system 
furnishes and allows. All the wrong roots there. 

My brother complains that we apply to him the word " pro- 
slavery." And he complains of Dr. Bailey, the editor of 
the Herald, whose " Facts for the People," he says, contain 
but few facts. As to Dr. Bailey, I will lay my judgment in 
pledge with your good opinion, on the fact that there is not 
an editor in Cincinnati, or elsewhere, (and I -mean no dis- 
paragement to the gentlemen of the press, when I say it,) 
more disposed to do justice to his fellow-men, and there are 
few men more able to do it than he. Is he a liar and a pub- 
lisher of lies because he calls men '•^pro-slavery w6W,"_who 



ON SLAVERY. 309 

give the slave-holder God's permission to hold slaves, when 
that permission includes all things necessary to carry out 
the system ? 

I must beg permission not to take up the argument on the 
golden rule, here, as my strength is exhausted. I wish to 
say that the word pro-slavery is not a slander upon those 
men who advocate slavery as right. Suppose a colony of 
men go to settle in Oregon Territory, and you wish to set 
up slavery there. All you have to do is to give to the colo- 
ny the law by which " slaves shall be deemed and taken 
in the law to be chattels personal," and you give them all 
the slavery which has ever existed since the time of Aris- 
totle: — all the slavery that existed in Rome during the 
twelve hundred years of that mighty Republic. You send 
over the Rocky mountains, the very same system wdiich ob- 
tained in Britain when our British ancestors were shipped 
like brutes to be sold in the Roman markets. The samo 
identical system which has existed in the United States of 
America, sinee-4lie first ill-freighted bark brought twenty 
slaves to our shores, in the year 1620, the very year of the 
landing of the Pilgrims upon the Plymouth Rock. It was 
in that year that Dutch merchants, under the protection of 
England, sowed the first seeds of that dreadful system in 
our country, whose fruitage now poisons the very air. You 
have, I say, only to give your Oregon colony the chattel 
law, and to teach them, as my brother does, that slave-hold- 
ing is not sinful, to introduce into Oregon the whole system of 
Greek, Roman, British and American slavery. Does not my 
brother know it? Yet he preaches these doctrines. He reite- 
rates them to-day. Why suffer your judgments to be abus- 
ed, Qfe, Iventuckians ! In the name of God, and your holy 
dead, I invoke you to hear the man who is now among you, 
toiling to persuade you to abandon this accursed and ruin- 
ous system. Stand by your countryman, Clay, w^hose only 
offence is the fault of Kentucldans, a slight excess of ardor, 
and desert the man who, in the garbof God's minister, would 
give you God's permission to enslave your race. Humanity 



310 DISCUSSION 

with her bleeding- bosom, and fettered hands, and brow, brand- 
ed with the brand mark of brutes, implores you to spare her 
the degradation, and yourselves the sin of upholding a sys- 
tem like this. To my unfortunate brother, who feels slan- 
dered by the term " pro-slavery," I have no advice to give, 
but to throw down his idols, and return to his God. Let 
him forsake his way and his thoughts, and let him return 
unto God who will have mercy upon him, and to our God 
Avho will abundantly pardon. \_Tlme expired. 



[ Ji R . rice's eleventh speech.] 
Gentlemen Moderators^ and Fellow-Citizens : 

I should be grateful if those who entertain the views I 
advocate, would abstain from applauding. A good cause does 
not require aids of this kind to sustain it ; a bad one may. 

I do not intend to imitate the example of the gentleman 
by telling you how much I have 'prayed^-mrih.i^ subject. 
It is right to pray ; but whilst listeningjlo his numerous in- 
correct statements, especially those bearlpjg' on the character 
of ministers of the gospel, I could ncMhelp thinking, he 
would better pray less and examine i^fe. And I would 
venture to suggest, that whilst praying for light on this sub- 
ject, he would do well to look a little into the Scriptures, 
through which light is to be obtained, and by which alone 
the question before lis can be satisfactorily settled. I have 
another objection to telling the audience how much I pray, 
viz: I have observed that generally those who talk most of 
their praying, give least evidence that they have prayed so 
as to ie improved thereby. *• 

Mr. B. asks, what is a relation ? He answers by telling 
lis, that a relation, a lawful relation, implies mutual rights 
and obligations ; and he infers, that the relation of master 
and slave is sinful, because, as he affirms, the slave has no 
rights, and the master no obligations. In this case, as in 
many others, he differs from Paul the apostle. He evidently 



ON SLAVERY. 311 

"believed, that this relation has connected with it mutual du- 
ties and obligations; and, therefore, in his epistles he points 
out the duties of the master, as well as those of the slave, 
and enjoins upon each the discharge of their respective du- 
ties, and upon each to regard the rights of the other. Ac- 
cording to the doctrine of the gentleman, however, the 
master has no rights and the servants no duties. I hope to 
he pardoned for being, on this subject, as blind as Paul, and 
as foolish as Peter ! 

He asks rather triumphantly, who are to be the slaves, 
and who, the masters — whether those superior in intellect 
and physical strength may rightly reduce their inferiors to 
servitude. 

And here, before answering this question, it occurs to me 
to say a word or two with regard to the adjournment of the 
debate till Monday afternoon. The gentleman complains 
of illness ; and, therefore, in accommodation to him I have 
reluctantly consented to the arrangement. I say reluctantly ; 
for although eighteen hdurs have been consumed, the gentle- 
man has not yet touched the question he stands pledged to 
debate. What he has thus far advanced, is, almost the 
whole of it, as distant from the question, as the moon from 
the earth. He has abounded in assertion^ but failed to ad- 
duce anything like scriptural evidence in favor of his propo- 
sition. Last evening, he gave us notice, that he would offer 
"the 6Zire<;/ argument for abolitionism:" we looked for a Bible 
argument^ but in vain. Now if a man cannot prove slave- 
holding sinful in nine hours^ I think he would better quit. 
[A laugh.] I regret that he has made the request, particu- 
larly because many who have come from a distance, expect- 
ing the debate to close on to-morrow, will probably be obliged 
to leave without hearing the most interesting part of it. As 
to the question, whether superiors may enslave those inferior 
to them, I reply: 1st. It has nothing to do with the subject 
we are discussing. As I have repeatedly remarked, we are 
not discussing the question, whether it is right to enslave 
free men. The question before us, which the gentleman 



312 'discussion 

stands pledged to discuss, relates to our duty to a class of 
men reduced to slavery by others. Is it the duty of those 
who inherited this evil, to rid themselves of it by an imme- 
diate emancipation, without regard to circumstances ? This 
is the question. And if the brother felt himself able to sup- 
port his affirmative proposition, would he Jbe continually 
speaking to something else? I presume not. He cannot 
avoid seeing and feeling that there is a difficulty in main- 
taining his side of the real question : and he therefore tries 
to divert our attention to a different issue. Is this candid 1 

But with what propriety does he ask the question, since 
he himself has said, that the negroes, if liberated, might with 
propriety be prevented from voting, and subjected to laws 
made for them ; because in some respects they are inferior to 
the whites ? If he does not advocate the depriving them of the 
right to vote and to hold civil offices ; he certainly considers 
such a course not wrong, since he proposes to leave it to poii- 
licians to do as they think proper. He holds, that supe- 
riors may not enslave inferiors, nor" under any circum- 
stances hold them in bondage ; but they may deprive them of 
some of the dearest rights of freemen ! The propriety of his 
question will not appear, at least, till he is more consistent. 

To prove the sinfulness of the relation between master and 
slave, he tells us, that every act authorized by the relation, is 
a sinful act. To prove this assertion, he selects one particu- 
lar : he says, that the slave-holder exacts the service of tho 
slave without allowing him wages. 

I have repeatedly presented for his consideration the case 
of the Presbyterian elder in Kentucky, who had become heir 
to a large number of slaves, of different ages — some old and 
infirm, others women and children. He asked the Synod 
what he ought to do. As for paying them wages, he said, 
taking them altogether, " they are eating me up.''^ They 
were an expense to him. Will the gentleman tell us, how 
much he owed them ? Dr. Cunningham, who had paid par- 
ticular attention to this subject, says, truly, that the worth of 
li^^^X. depends upon circumstances ; and he states, that in 



ON SLAVERY. 13 

Great Britain there are many persons who are obliged to la- 
bor twenty hours out of the twenty-four, and even then they 
cannot secure a support for themselves and their families. I 
presume, the gentleman had not heard of these facts. He is 
slow to hear what makes against his favorite doctrines. I 
affirm, that if any slave-holder in Kentucky should require 
his slaves to labor ticenty hours in twenty-four, he would be 
drummed out of the State ; he would be regarded as a mon- 
ster of cruelty. It is absolutely certain, that the slaves in 
our country do receive generally better wages, than multi- 
tudes of the free laborers in England and Scotland. The 
amount justly due, as wages, must depend upon many cir- 
cumstances. I can truly say, that if a family of slaves were 
offered me to-morrow, as a present, on condition that I should 
take care of the aged, feed and clothe the children, pay 
doctor's bills. &C., I would not, as a mere matter of pecu- 
niary consideration, accept the gift. ( I mean as a matter 
of profit and loss.) If I were obliged to maintain the old 
who are past work, and the children who are not yet able, 
and to pay the doctor's bills for the whole, I would not take 
the family as a free gift. 

Doubtless great injustice is often done in the slave relation, 
as in the married relation. Oppression and cruelty may be 
practiced in both, but that does not prove either of the rela- 
tions to be in itself sinful. Paul thought (but he was no ab- 
olitionist,) that the relation might continue and yet the mas- 
ter give to his slave "that which is just and equal." He 
does not require the relation to be dissolved ; nor does he re- 
quire wages to be paid in money. 

The brother says, the slave-holder has a right to separate 
husband and wife. How does he prove it ? By the Bible 1 
No: but by the Rev. Mr. Blanchard's assertion! No 
doubt, the master can do it ; he has the physical power to 
separate them. So he may beat his slave to death, or knock 
him down with an ax ; but who recognizes his moral right 
to do so 1 No man ever asserted it. 

If the gentleman's assertion be true, Constantine must, 



S14 DISCUSSION 

after all, have been a great fool in making laws that no mas- 
ter should separate husband and wife. 

It is vain for Mr. B. to assert that every slave-holder can 
do what in some countries the law of the State forbids, and 
what in this country the law of the Presbyterian church 
expressly prohibits him from doing-. Men own horses ; and 
the gentleman will scarcely deny that a man's horses are, in 
the fullest sense of the word, his property. But does it fol- 
fow, that he may treat them as cruelly as his passions may 
prompt him to do? May he cut them up by peacemeal, al- 
lowing them still to live ? The Bible teaches, that " a right- 
eous man regardeth the life of his beast ;" and even the civil 
lau- punishes a man proved guilty of cruel treatment of his 
horse. And yet the gentleman would have us believe, 
that because a man claims the services of his fellow man 
under certain circumstances, he may treat him as a brute, 
may inflict on him all the suffering he can endure ! Such 
logic may satisfy those who are already ardent abolitionists j 
but cannot convince the unprejudiced. 

Why only look at it. He urges, as an argument against 
slave-holding, that which, if valid, would destroy the mar- 
riage relation. He says, that slave-holding is a deadly sin, 
because a master may separate a wife from her husband. 
Granting that he can, (though certainly the relation does not 
authorize him to do so,) cannot a husband prevent his wife 
from going to church ? Has he not the physical power ? 
And cannot a father, so long as his son is under age, prevent 
him from attending any place of worship? or from joining 
any church? Certainly, the husband and the father may 
thus tyrannize over the wife and the child , but is this a valid 
argument against the relation of husband and wife ? — of 
parent and child ? What does his argument amount to ? It 
amounts just to this, that if a man has power over another, 
he may abuse it as much as he pleases. The gentleman is 
arguing against principles which are avowed by no man 
under the sun. 
^ Then he asks, '' But why seek to free a slave, if the rela- 



ON SLAVERY. 315 

tion is not sinful V In reply,' I ask, 'why seek to relieve 
a man's poverty, if poverty be not sinful?' Wonderful 
logic, this. 

Again, he asks, " why is it, if Dr. Rice is so much op- 
posed to slave-holding, that his doctrines are so popular 
among rampant slave-holders ? " A little while ago, he told 
you, that my doctrines were most unpalatable at the South — 
that slave-holders could not endure them ; and, behold, he 
now asserts directly the contrary. Ought not a man, who 
will assert, in the space of two hours, two propositions, the 
very reverse of each other, to have till Monday to adjust his 
ideas ? [A laugh.] 

He inquires how, if I am opposed to slavery, I can preach 
to persevering slave-holders in Kentucky — how it happens, 
that my doctrines are so acceptable to them. I ask him, 
how he can preach the truth to sinners in Cincinnati ? [A 
laugh.] He really seems to think that no man can preach 
the truth to sinners without being stoned. I think it proba- 
ble, that when the stones flew so thickly around him, as he 
told us they once did, that he provoked opposition by some 
such incoirect statements as he has repeatedly made here. 

By the way, I will not say how much I have been 
praised, or how much popularity I have sacrificed, for what 
I believe to be the truth, as the gentleman has done. I 
have nothing of the kind to communicate. 

There is in the house a number of Kentuckians, who 
came to this place to hear all the gentleman had to offer in 
proof of his doctrine, that slave-holding is in itself sinful ; 
but they have been disappointed. They have heard him 
7iine hours, and have heard him advance nothing like a 
scriptural argument. They would doubtless hear him 
patiently, if he would reason ; but I venture to say, they 
will regard all his declamation and attacks upon personal 
character, as the idle wind. 

But slave-holding, he thinks, must be in itself sinful, be- 
cause it hinders the coming of the Millenium. Facts, how- 
ever, contradict his assertion ; for it is well known, that the 



316 DISCUSSION 

churches in the slave-holding States — those, for exaniple, in 
Kentucky, are quite as prosperous as those in Ohio, or any 
of the free States. This the abolitionists cannot deny. I 
could easily point to many churches in Kentucky, far more 
prosperous than that to which the gentleman ministers in 
this city, which, if I am correctly informed, he has preached 
almost to death. 

The brother insists, that slave-holding is kidnapping con- 
tinued — kidnapping " stretched out." This is but a repeti- 
tion of his former argument. He seems about to begin 
de novo. Then, he says again, that it abolishes marriage, 
but brings not a word from the Bible to prove it. Perhaps 
he is going to "keep saying" it, like his friend, Mr. Leavitt ! 
[A laugh.] 

But I shall now leave such arguments as these, and return 
'' to the law and to the testimony." 

The brother has pronounced a most eloquent eulogium 
upon the Bible. I cannot pretend to repeat it; yet he 
attempted to cast no little odium upon me because I insisted 
upon going directly to the Bible. How shall I please the 
gentleman? 

He would fain excite prejudice against me, because I said 
that if I buy a man he is mine. But what does the Bible 
say to slaves ? " Obey your masters in all things." If the 
man is his master, then he is his servant. And I simply said, 
if I buy a man, he is mine, so far as his services are con- 
cerntd. This is Paul's doctrine, but if Paul^were on earth 
to-day the abolitionists would excommunicate him ! [A 
laugh.] 

"Oh thou most blessed book," exclaims the gentleman. 
Yes: and oh that the gentleman would but get into the 
blessed book. [Renewed laughter.] But he won't, and I 
can't get him there. He comes no nearer than to cr}^, " oh 
blessed book." 

The gentleman says, if the slave is his master's, then he 
may beat him at pleasure, and exercise all cruelty toward 
him, just as he may the log of wood he owns. But, unhap- 



A_^,^ , 



ON SLAVERY. 317 

pily, the Bible admits the one, and forbids the other. " Oh, 
blessed book!" A man's child is his; may he knock its 
brains out? If the gentleman's argument is good for any- 
thing, he may kill it, or do anything else to it he pleases. I 
cannot detain, to answer such logic. 

I now, resume the Bible argument ; and as there are many 
persons present now, who did not hear me this afternoon, 
you will bear with me whilst, for the satisfaction of such, I 
briefly recapitulate. 

It is a truth which the gentleman will scarcely deny, that 
God, who is infin-itely holy, and '* of purer eyes than to look 
on sin," never did, and never could, give men permission to 
form a relation in itself sinful, or sinful in the circumstances 
in which it is formed. In other words, God cannot grant 
to men permission to commit sin. Now, if I prove, that 
God did recognize the relation of master and slave as lawful, 
and did give express permission to the Jews to purchase 
slaves; it will follow, inevitably, that the relation between 
master and slave is not in itself sinful. I go, then, directly to 
the "blessed book," as Mr. B. very appropriately styles it. 

1. I have proved, as I think, beyond a doubt, that Hagar 
was Abraham's slave ; for in the first place, the Hebrew 
word shifha^ translated "maid," properly means a female 
slave. Gessenius defines it, ancilla, famula, wdiich words in 
the Latin tongue, mean a female slave. The Septuagint trans- 
lates it by the Greek word, paidiske, a word of the same 
meaning as ancilla and famula in Latin. In the second 
place, I showed, that in the 4th chapter of the epistle to the 
Gallatians, Hagar is called a ^'■bondivoma7ij^ (^paidiske) in 
contrast with Sarah, who v/as free — eleuthera. If she was 
not a slave, there was no contrast such as Paul draws, be- 
tween her condition and that of Sarah. Thirdly, Abraham 
told Sarah, her maid was in her hand, and she could do with 
her as she pleased ; and when Sarah punished her, she fled 
from her, and was found in the wilderness. Those who 
have hired servants, do not claim authority to punish 



318 DISCUSSION 

them; nor do they rw7i from their employers. The angel 
of God found her in the wilderness, and admonished her to 
return and submit to her mistress. Would he have done so, 
if the relation of master and slave had been in itself sinful ? 
Would Mr. Blanchard give such advice to a fugitive slave? 
Did God denounce Abraham as " a kidnapper," because 
Haofar was his slave ? 

2. Abraham, as I proved from the 17th chapter of Genesis, 
had servants bought with his money ^ as well as servants horn 
in his house ; and so far from requiring him to liberate them, 
or denouncing him for holding them, God required him to 
administer to them the ordinance of circumcision. More- 
over, Abimelech gave bond-servants of both sexes to Abra- 
ham, and he received them. Is not the receiver as bad as 
the thief? If they were kidnapped, (as my friend maintains,) 
and were "found in Abraham's hand," he was worthy of 
death. Once more, Abraham's pious servant told Laban, that 
the Lord himself had given his master men-servants and 
maid-servants, as well as camels and asses. Was it a sin in 
Abraham to hold what God had given ? 

3. I gave the Hebrew words which signify slave and hired 
servant viz : eved^ a slave, and sakir^ a hired servant. The 
Hebrew servant, sold for six years, was not to be treated as an 
eved^ a slave, but as a sakir^ a hired servant. I read in Leviti- 
cus, ch. 25, the express permission given the Jews to buy bond- 
men and bondmaids from the heathen ; and if the gentleman 
denies, that the word cved^ here translated bondman^ means 
slave^ I earnestly request him, as I did this afternoon, to tell 
us what word in the Hebrew language does have that mean- 
ing. Moreover, not only were these bondmen bought with 
money ; but they are called the 'possession of the man who 
bought them, and the inheritance of his children forever. 
The Jew, sold for six years, might also voluntarily become 
a servant for life, having his car bored. But if they were 
bought^ were they not his for the purpose for which he bought 
them? 



ON SLAVERY. 319 

4. There were also hired servants ; and the hiw required that 
their wages should be promptly paid, but said nothing con.- 
cerning- the wacjes of bondmen. The bondmen were distin- 

o o 

guished from the hired servants, in that the former were per- 
mitted to partake of the passover, but the latter, not being 
permanently connected with the family, were not. 5. As a 
further and conclusive evidence that the bondmen spoken ot 
in the law of Moses, were slaves, I proved that the master 
v/as permitted to enforce their obedience by chastisement, 
which was never done in the case of hired servants ; and that 
the master was not subject to punishment if his servant lived 
a day or two after the chastisement, because '^he zvas his mo- 
ney J^ I have stated, and I repeat it, that all commentators, 
critics and theologians of any note, understand the word eved 
to mean a slave, and the bondmen of the Jews to have been 
real slaves. Indeed, stronger language to establish this fact, 
could not be used. 

The fact, then, is clearly established, that God recognized 
as lawful, the relation of master and slave in the case of the 
patriarchs, and that he gave express permission to the Jews, 
to form the relation by purchasing slaves from the heathen. 
The conclusion is inevitable, that the relation is not in itself 
sinful. 

How do the abolitionists attempt to escape the force of this 
evidence? I will pay my respects to their replies to it. 

1. They say, the servants bought by the Jews, sold them- 
selves. To this I reply — 1st, It cannot be proved. Whatev- 
er might be true of adults, it is certain that childi-en did not 
sell themselves ; and they were permitted to purchase " chil- 
dren of the strangers." 2d, If the relation is in itself sinful, 
they had no right to sell themselves into it ; nor had any 
man the right to purchase them, and thus to form a relation 
in itself sinful. No consent of parties can make that right, 
which is in itself wrong. A woman may consent to be a 
concubine ; but her consent will not make the relation thus 
constituted, lawful. Sd, But Rev. T. E. Thomas, a zealous and 



320 DISCUSSION 

influential abolitionist, says — " The advocates of slavery can 
devise but one answer, accordant with their views ; namely, 
that the heathen round about were slave-holders, that they 
had captives taken in war, and whom they might sell to 
the Jewish purchaser. We admit that some servants of this 
sort might be bought of the heathen^who claimed to be their 
masters, and shall prove, presently, that even such persons 
could not be held by the Hebrews, without their consent." 
Review oj Jimldn, p. 23. It is admitted, then, the slaves did 
not always sell themselves j but were, at least sometimes, sold 
by their masters. 

2. But it is said, the Jews could not purchase servants 
without their consent. To this I reply, that no Christian 
would be willing to purchase an adult slave without his con- 
sent, nor to sell an obedient slave to a master with whom he 
is unwilling to live. If a professing Christian were known 
to purchase adult slaves, contrary to their wish, and to com- 
pel them to live with him, I admit, that he would thus man- 
ifest a spirit so inconsistent with Christianity, as to deserve 
the discipline of the church. But suppose I buy a slave at 
his own earnest request, do I buy him without his consent ? 
Yet abolitionists denounce the slave-holder who has formed 
the relation with the consent, and at the request of the slave, 
whilst they are constrained to admit, that the Jews purchased 
in this way ! 

3. It is alleged, that the term of service of the servants 
bought of the heathen, was limited. Of this class of ser- 
x'ants, Mr. Thomas says — " They were never purchased for 
six years; but always till the jubilee.^' For argument's sake, we 
will admit the truth of this statement ; and now, let me ask, 
what proportion of those purchased in this way, would live 
to enjoy the freedom proclaimed at the jubilee ? Suppose a 
man thirty years of age, bought by a Jew immediately after 
the jubilee, he would be a slave forty-nine years, and would 
become free at the age of seventy-nine. Of what advantage 
would his liberty be to him at that age. How many live to 



ON SLAVERY. 32l 

four-score years ? But it may be said, his children will, at 
any rate, be free. Suppose we admit this, it does not affect 
the question before us. We are discussing the question, 
whether slave-holding is in itself sinful, and the relation be- 
tween master and slave a sinful relation. If it is in itself 
sinful, it is a sin to hold a man in that relation one day, as 
trul}^ as to hold him forty-nine years ; and if it be lawful to 
hold a slave five years, or fifty years, he may be held a 
longer time, if there be no law against it. But the argu- 
ment 1 am considering, admits that the relation might law- 
fully exist till the year of jubilee. This admission is all I 
ask ; for it concedes that the relation is not in itself sinful. 
I thank no man for making this concession ; because it is 
perfectly easy to prove the fact, whether it is admitted or not. 

4. It is alleged, that the bondmen of the Jews received 
wages. I demand the proof; and I venture to say it will not 
be produced. The law [Levit. xix, 13) required the wages 
of the hired servant to be promptly paid ; but where does it 
say a word concerning the wages of the bondman 1 But let 
it be remembered, that unrequited labor is only one of the 
sinful features of slave-holding, mentioned by abolitionists. 
If the relation was sinful, the fact that the slave received 
wages, would not make it right. 

5. It is said that though the Jews might buy servants, 
they might not sell. Admitting this too, for the argument's 
sake, will it follow that the holding of a slave is sinful? 
The controversy between us and the abolitionists, is not 
about slave-selling, but about slave-holding. But where is 
his proof that they might not sell ? The law expressly per- 
mitted them to buy slaves, and did not forbid them to sell. 
There is, indeed a law forbiding a master to sell a Jewish 
servant to strangers; but they might sell to their brethren. 
Exceptio probat regulam : the exception confirms the rule. 

6. It is alleged, that some of the old patriarchs had sever- 
al wives, and the same arguments which prove slave-holding 
not in itself sinful, prove that polygamy and concubinage are 

21 



322 DISCUSSION 

right. It is admitted, that some pious men, at an early day, 
had a plurality of wives ; but let the gentleman, if he can, 
produce the divine permission given to any man to marry 
more than one wife. Polygamy and concubinage are wrong ; 
but God never gave permission to any man to form such re- 
lations. But I have proved, that he did give the Jews ex- 
press permission to buy and hold slaves. 

I am under no obligation to assign the reason why God 
gave the Jews permission to purchase and hold slaves. I 
have proved the fact ; and that is sufficient to prove the doc- 
tine of the abolitionists false. Yet I will give what was, as 
I suppose, the reason. Doubtless he intended that in this 
way degraded heathen should be made acquainted with that 
blessed religion by which they might be made happier on 
earth, and might secure eternal life. Those who were pur- 
chased by the Jews, were not, I suppose, thereby reduced 
to slavery. They were already slaves to degraded and 
cruel heathen masters, held in a state of bondage compared 
with vv^hich slavery under the Mosaic law, was almost free- 
dom. God's permission to the Jews to purchase them, was 
therefore, benevolent ; for their condition was greatly im- 
proved by the change. 

In view of this whole argument we are forced to the sol- 
emn conclusion that one of two things are true : either God 
gave permission to men to form a sinful relationj and to be- 
come according to our brother, kidnappers and man-stealers — 
or, it is not true, that the relation of master and slave is in 
itself sinful. 

The gentleman who imagines himself peculiarly illumin- 
ed, pours upon me his denunciations, and calls upon all 
Kentuckians to abandon such a man. In the fulness of 
his compassion he commisserates my blindness and moral de- 
gradation ; and his abolition brethren may sympathise with 
him. But after all, I am inclined to think, he will find him- 
self in the condition of a certain monomaniac of whom I have 
somewhere heard. A visitor asked him how it happened 



ON SLAVERY. 323 

that he had become an inmate in the Asylum. He answer- 
ed — " The world said, I was deranged ; and I said, the 
world was deranged ; and they outvoted me." [A laugh.] 

Suppose the question put to vote, how many of the emi- 
nently wise and good, in past time and at the present day, 
would be found with the gentleman ? Doubtless, he feels 
deep commisseration for such men as poor blinded Dr. Scott, 
the Commentator ! for his views concerning Jewish servi- 
tude precisely accord with mine. I will read a single ex- 
tract from his commentary on^Levit. xxv, 44, — 46. " The 
Israelites were permitted to keep slaves of other nations ; 
perhaps in order to testify, that none but the true Israel of 
God participated of that liberty with which Christ hath made 
his people free. But it was also allowed, in order that in 
this manner the Gentiles might become acquainted with true 
religion, (Gen. xvii, 10 — 13. xviii, 19,) and when the Israel- 
ites copied the example of their pious progenitors, there can 
,be no reasonable doubt, that it was overruled for the eternal 
salvation of many souls," &c. 

Poor ignorant Dr. Scott! how our abolitionist friends 
must pity him ! 

Bishop Home, too, the author of the celebrated "Intro- 
duction to the study of the Scriptures," in 4 volumes — one 
of the most learned men of his day, takes precisely the same 
view of the subject. He says : (Vol. 3, p. 419. 

" Slavery is of very remote antiquity. It existed before 
the flood, [Ge?i ix, 25 ; ) and when Moses gave his laws to 
the Jews, finding it already established, though he could not 
abolish it, yet he enacted various salutary laws and regula- 
tions. The Israelites indeed might have Hebrew servants or 
slaves, as well as alien-born persons, but these were to be 
circumcised," &c. After stating the various ways in which 
slaves might be acquired, he says : — " Slaves received both 
food and clothing, for the most part of the meanest quality, 
but whatever property they acquired, belonged to their lords : 
hence, they are said to be worth double the value of a hired 
servant. {Deut. xv, 18.) They formed marriages at the will 



324 DISCUSSION 

of the master ; but their children were slaves, who, though 
they could not call him a father, {Gal. iv, 6. Rom. viii, 15,) 
yet they were attached and faithful to him as to a Hither, on 
which account the patriarchs trusted them with arms. If a 
married Hebrew sold himself, he was to serve for six years, 
&c., but, if his master had given one of his slaves to him as 
a wife, she was to remain, with his children, as the property 
of her maslcrP 

The compassionate brother no doubt is all this while pity- 
ing blinded Dr. Scott, and blinded Dr. Home, and poor 
blinded Dr. Chalmers and poor stone-blind Matthew Poole, 
(the author of the Synopsis and Annotations,) who fell into 
the same heresy : and while he is weeping, he may as well 
include, at once, all the best critics on the Old Testament who 
have enlightened and blessed the church of God. I defy the 
gentleman to show a single commentator, critic, or theolo- 
gian of any admitted pretensions to scholarship, who does 
not give the same exposition which I have given of the pas- 
sao-es in relation to servitude amon^ the Jews. That an over- 
whelming majority of the wisest and best men the church 
ever saw, agree with me in this view of those scriptures, I 
am prepared to prove. 

The brother wants very much to show that Dr. Cunning- 
ham is an abolitionist, and is with him in sentiment. I will 
therefore quote a little from his testimony, just to show that 
he is as blind, as stupid, or as corrupt, as I am, and as all 
other Bible critics and commentators. 

"They [slave-holding Christians,] submit to what they can- 
not help. Slavery is sinful as a system, but not necessarily in 
those who stand related to it. A very little consideration of 
the whole state of things, then, would show, that this is re- 
ally the ca^fi. A man may be a slave-holder innocently. 
Every man Of right feeling, who has true notions of what 
man is, as made in the image of God, and of man's duties 
and obligations, would, as much as possible, avoid ever com- 
ing into such a relation. * * * But then we ought to make 
distinctions, and enter into the position in which w^e perceive 



ON SLAVEilY. 325 

they are placed. The slave laws are, beyond all question, 
most infamous. They do treat them as " brute beasts" or 
"chattels personal." On the majority of the community 
there rests a fearful amount of guilt, which could scarcely be 
exaggerated, &c. The law makes the slaves chattels per- 
sonal. The necessary consequence is, that a man becomes, 
whether he will or not, the possessor of slaves. They are 
his, and he cannot get rid of them. * * * The sum and sub- 
stance of what is commonly asserted by the church, is just a 
denial of the abolition principle that slavery is sinfuJ in such 
a sense, that mere slave-holding in all circumstances is a 
crime, and an adequate ground for expulsion from the Lord's 
table : and they have heyond all question^ the example of the 
apostles and apostolic churches to justify themP Again — 
" I have not the slightest hesitation in repudiating Ameri- 
can abolitionism." 

You observe, when speaking of abolitionists, he speaks of 
them as on "the other side." Is he one of them? Or does 
he not hold my principles precisely ? I told you that the 
slave laws were many of them infamous. Dr. Cunning- 
ham says the same. He says, the law makes them chattels 
personal ; but, he also says, concerning many masters, their 
slaves are theirs, and he cannot get rid of them. 

\Time expired. 



Friday Evening, 9 o'clock. 
[MR. BLANCHARD's TWELFTH SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen Moderators^ and Gentlemen and Ladies, Fellow- 
Citizens : 

My whole speech, fortunately, will be in reply to the one 
just fallen from my brother, without departing from my 
prescribed course. It will be, throughout, upon the scripture 
argument, after about five minutes' reply to what he said 
before he himself came to the scriptures. 



326 DISCUSSION 

'^ When he said that the Sixth Presbyterian Church, of 
which I am pastor, '■'-was preached almost to death" I felt 
sorry that such a remark should have escaped him, first, 
because my success as a pastor has nothing to do with the 
truth of my arguments here, and therefore the charge was 
entirely gratuitous ; and secondly, I do not like to say a 
word in my own case, in reply to such a remark, nor would 
I (for my work, as a pastor, is with God,) but for the sake 
of a beloved church, which has been faithful to me : and for 
the sake of those theological students in the audience, w^ho 
might be misled, by his remark, to suppose that opposing 
slave-holding is against pastoral success. 

When I took charge of the church, seven years ago last 
March, I was inexperienced and unpopular with those who 
hate all religion, except that which, like the piety of Mr. 
By-ends in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, " always jumps 
with the times." We had then but one hundred and twenty 
members, and have since been bereaved of several leading 
members by death. We have, through the mercy of God, 
enjoyed frequent revivals, and as the fruits of about seven 
years' labor, have received more than four hundred mem- 
bers. Through the rapid multiplication of new churches 
of the same order to which colonies we have largely con- 
tributed, the number of dismissions have been large, so that 
our present number is about two hundred and fifty, or about 
double that with which we commenced. A debt o{ five 
thousand dollars^ incurred in the purchase of a house of 
worship, during the times of pecuniary pressure, was, on the 
first day of January last, entirely cancelled, being paid down, 
or assumed by responsible men, and the church and congre- 
gation were never more united, prosperous and happy, than 
at present. I shall not bring my brother's want of pastoral 
ability to refute his arguments in this debate, nor go into 
Kentucky to enquire whether he has preached his former 
churches into death or into life. 

' My brother thinks me guilty of an inconsistency in saying 
that his doctrine was acceptable to slave-holders ; and saying, 



ON SLAVERY. 327 

also, that it was unacceptable to tliem. I did utter both 
those remarks, and both are true, and both consistent. The 
explanation is simply this, that like all defenders of error, 
his arguments are inconsistent with, and destroy each 
other, one part being acceptable to slave-holders, the other, 
not. What he said, declaring that " slave-holders have no 
right to hold their slaves, as property, for gain," they will 
not thank him for saying ; but the vilest of them will own 
him as their champion, while contending that "slave-holding 
is not sin." So that, as I said, what he teaches is unaccept- 
able to slave-holders, and what he teaches is acceptable to 
them. 

Again : He says that I, in the figure of the rats, represen- 
ted, that to go to Hebrew and Greek is to go into darkness. 
But he is mistaken. I said no such thing. This is what I 
said. That there is a class of rnen who seek to climb by 
sectarian services to the top of old ecclesiastical establish- 
ments founded by the piety of past generations : — that these 
men are slaves to authorities, weighing men's opinions against 
plain justice : — that they dive into the lumber-room of anti- 
quity to fetch out what instances they can find of the curtail- 
ment of human freedom in dark and despotic ages, before the 
empire of force had yielded to that of reason ; and twist 
them into a coil of precedents, to bind American Christian- 
ity to the toleration of American despotism in an age of lib- 
erty and light. That is what I said ; and not that Hebrew 
and Greek, the original tongues of the scriptures, were a 
source of darkness. Much good may his Hebrew and Greek 
do him ; I apprehend he will have need of all he is master of, 
before he gets through this debate. He further remarked that 
there could not be found one respectable commentator who 
did not hold that slave-holding is not sinful, *' he will confess 
that he could find none." I have an argument upon commen- 
tators which I will introduce in its place. Meantime I ob- 
serve that Dr. Adam Clarke, whom Methodists at least will 
respect, in commenting upon the Ephesians vi, 5, says, that; 
" In heathen countries slavery had some sort of excuse. 



S28 DISCUSSION 

Among Christians it is a crime, and an outrage for which 
perdition has scarcely an adequate 'punishment /" 

There is one commentator at least who does not quite agree 
with my brother. 

Mr. Rice rose. I will beg leave to correct the gentleman . 
I said he could not find one respectable commentator who 
ever gave a different interpretation to the passages of scripture 
which I quoted, from mine. 

Mr. Blanchard. Perhaps you are right. I will how- 
ever, give other commentators in their place. I thought I 
would read this just here by way of spice. [Great laughter.] 

Now, Gentlemen Moderators, and Fellow-Citizens. I am 
happy to be in a situation to follow my brother pari 'passu, 
in his scripture argument. His first main argument was 
from authorities. That I shall hereafter consider. His sec- 
ond was from scripture language, and that I am to consider 
now. 

In the scripture argument for slavery, there are two texts 
so much relied on by slave-holders, and their apologists, that 
(if any part of the Bible could be) they might be called " the 
slave-holders, texts ;" as their whole Bible argument hangs on 
their understanding of them. If these are taken from under 
them, their whole argument drops to the ground. They are 
Leviticus, chapter, xxv, 45, and Exodus, xxi, 21. 

It is not pretended by them that the general principles of 
the Bible give the slightest countenance to slavery. They 
therefore do not attempt to show, by reference to the whole 
scope of the Bible, that slavery is consistent with its prin- 
ciples, for the principles of the Bible are justice and righteous- 
ness. But they rely upon individual texts and parts of texts, 
which, taken out from the connexion, seem to teach that 
slavery was not a sin under the circumstances there found. 
Though their texts by no means prove their doctrine when 
an enlightened and just criticism is applied to them. As I 
have observed, their whole argument radiates from these two 
texts as from a centre, while all their subordinate and infe- 



ON SLAVERY. 329 

rior inferences, drawn from other texts, as well as from these, 
are founded upon the same false view of the Bible, and are 
chickens of the same brood of error. I will come now; 
though contrary to the usual course pursued in forensic ar- 
gument, (which is, to prove your proposition before stating and 
answering objections ; so as to arm your hearers with truth, 
before staggering them with errors which you have not yet 
prepared them to meet.) I will come first to the very heart 
and core of their "Bible argument," reading the texts on 
which they mainly rely, and on which they are harping 
from July to June. The first is Levit. xxv, 45. 

" Moreover, of the children of the strangers {i. e. Canaan- 
ites,) that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and 
of their families that are with you ; which they beget in 
your land : and they shall be your possession, and ye shall 
take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to 
inherit them for a possession : they shall be your bondmen 
forever: but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye 
shall not rule, one over another with rigor." 

I have an hour and a half speech, to prove that these 
bondmen or bound-men were not slaves. But I am now 
simply replying to his arguments. His position is that 
this passage proves that the Hebrews held slaves, and that 
by God's permission. 

I wish here, in the outset, to protest against being under- 
stood, even if I admitted the Hebrew bond-servants to be 
slaves, as also admitting that their slavery could sanction 
ours. (But I do not admit that those bond-servants were 
slaves, and my main argument will be, to prove that they 
were not.) For even if they had been slaves, they were 
Canaanites, a race of men accursed of God, having filled 
the measure of their iniquities, and doomed to extermination 
from the earth. Surely, if God saw fit to enslave these 
people for their crimes, and commanded his people to exe- 
cute this wrath upon them, that would not justify an Ameri- 
can in enslaving indifferent, unoffending persons. This must 
be clear to every understanding. If the court issue a war- 



330 DISCUSSION 

rant to the sheriff of your county to hang a convicted crim- 
inal, that warrant does not authorize any man to go out and 
hang any man in any other county who has been illegally 
seized. Supposing the Canaanites were really enslaved, 
with God's permission, for their sins, it does not give Dr. 
Rice, or his slave-holding friends, a right to enslave any 
person in the State of Kentucky, be it negro, mulatto, or 
white woman, the child of German, Irish, or Italian parents. 
I do not therefore admit, that, if those Hebrew bond-servants 
were slaves, that it does any thing towards maintaining his 
argument, that " slave-holding is no sin." This argument 
depends on the assumption, that God never can permit, for 
any purpose, punitive or otherwise, that which is wrong in 
itself But God certainly permitted the Jews to divorce for 
hatred ; and divorce for hatred is wrong in itself See Deut. 
xxiv. 3. " If the latter husband hate her, and write her 
a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and send- 
cth her out of the house," &c., her former husband may 
not again take her to wife. Thus by the Jewish code, 
authorized by God, and given by Moses, men were al- 
lowed^ to divorce their wives for hatred, so far as re- 
gulating and restricting a vile practice allows it. Does 
ihat justify American husbands in turning the mothers of 
their children out of doors, in every family quarrel, weeping 
and friendless, because hated? 

Admit his inference from Jewish bond-service — (Jev/ish 
slavery if he will) to American, and you admit a principle by 
which every husband who hates his wife may drive her 
from his door. The teaching of Christ is explicit on the 
subject of divorce for hatred, showing that it is contrary to the 
original constitutions of God. When the Pharisees, asked 
him, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every 
cause?" His reply was '■^ From the beginning it was not 
50." " What therefore God hath joined together, let not man 
put assunder." " Moses because of the hardness of your hearts 
gave you that precept." Mat. xix. Yet in Deut. xxiv, 3, it 
is said, " And if the latter husband hate her and write a bill 



ON SLAVERY. 331 

of divorcement and giveth it in her hand and sendeth her out 
of his house ; or if the latter husband die, which took her 
to be his wife, her former husband which sent her away, 
may not take her again to be his wife," &c. 

We see therefore that divorce for hatred was permitted — 
and yet the same thing is not permitted now, but expressly for- 
bidden as smful by Christ himself. So if, in despotic coun- 
tries, and in ages when as yet the law of force had not giv- 
en way before the empire of reason, slavery had been per- 
mitted ; it does not help the argument for American slave- 
holding. 

But again. This text, itself the very sheet anchor of the 
slave-holding doctrine, is misinterpreted to make it yield 
those inferences in favor of slavery which they draw from 
it. It positively does not mean, and can be shown not to 
mean what they say and suppose it to mean. 

My brother told you that my argument on a certain point, 
proving to much, proved nothing ; I grant that if an argu- 
ment proves too much, it proves nothing, I deny however, 
that mine was of that class. But let us apply that logical 
test to his main argument from Levit. xxv, 45. " Of them 
shall ye buy bondmen," etc., " and they shall be your pos- 
session." 

Is not the slave-trade justified here ? 

Now if their understanding of this text be correct, that 
those bondmen bought, were slaves ; was not the business of 
buying them from the heathen tribes, the slave trade? And 
if this verse proves that God permitted slavery, does it not 
also prove that he permitted the slave trade ? This certainly 
is proving too much ; more even than Dr. Rice wishes to 
prove, that God permitted, nay commanded them to drive a 
slave trade with heathen nations — a traffic which consigns 
the trader caught on the African coast to be hung as a pi- 
rate ? If you take this text in their sense ; it is a complete 
justification of the slave trade; far more clear than it is of 
slavery. For: ''Of them shall ye buy," etc., not them 
ghall ye hold. Certainly his interpretation of this text 



332 DISCUSSION 

])roves too much, and, therefore, by his own quoted canon 
])roves nothing. For my brother himself roundly denoun- 
ces the slave trade as an "infernal traffic." 

Mr. Rice. I did not denounce the buying of slaves: we 
are under obligations of humanity often to do that ; but the spe* 
culating in them for money — the tearing apart of families, ifcc- 

Mr. Blanciiard. You hear the brother's explanation, 
and I desire you should allow it all the force which it de- 
serves. 

I now resume the argument — with this remark, that, if you 
buy a slave only to set him free, your act is not slave-holding ; 
it is an act of redemption. When the United States bought 
Americans from the Algerines, it was not slave-trading. 
We bought them to set them free. Now the whole ques- 
tion is simply this : were those bondmen which were bought 
by the Jews, slaves in the hands of their Hebrew masters 
or not? If they were not, then there was no slavery among 
the Jews, and his whole vaunted Bible argument is founded 
in and drawn from a mistake. But if they were slaves to 
the Jews, then the text justifies, not only slavery, but the 
slave trade, the original kidnapping, middle-passage, auction 
mart, coffle and all. He can no more escape from this than 
he can from the gripe of death. So truly as that text justi- 
fies holding slaves, in Kentucky or Virginia or Tennessee ; 
so truly is it a warrant for the slave trade by which those 
slaves are procured ; for its leading idea and object, is to di- 
rect the Jews to buy their bondmen of heathen nations, 
nations which were to them what Africans are to us. And 
when Sir John Hawkins, under Elizabeth, commenced the 
slave trade, it was founded and defended upon this very 
text. And, according to Dr. Rice's interpretation, Haw- 
kins was right. They reasoned fairly, from my friend's 
premises ; for if it authorises the holding, it authorises the 
trading, in slaves. Bui it does neither — blessed be God — 
it does neither ! 

Nor does his argument hold good if it did both. Tliere 
is not in the text a sprinkling of American slave-holding and 



ON SLAVERY. 333 

American slave trading-. The American slaves were stolen 
in the persons of their ancestors, and are held by the title by 
which men hold stolen goods. I remember, when a student, 
the account given by one who had been in the slave trade. 
He said he had heen a seaman before the mast upon the 
African coast, in a vessel engaged in this traffic ; and that 
their custom was to take out boxes of muskets, powder, gun- 
flints, and whiskey, and distribute them among the petty 
kings along the coast ; and, at night, they could see the 
flaming villages, fired by these chiefs, in their savage ma- 
rauds upon each other's territory, for slaves to freight the 
vessel in the offing; that they coul'd sometimes hear the 
shouts of the conflict, and see the naked and afli'ighted 
wretches by the light of their flaming dwellings, flying from 
immediate death, or, what is worse, an eternal slavery in an 
unknown land. These wretches, captured in this revolting 
manner, in wars, stimulated and set on by the traders, were 
the ancestors of our slaves. That is the way, and such the 
title we have obtained to them. More than this, multitudes 
are now ki.dnapped, thus, brought direct to the United 
States, and " broken in" upon our plantations, being intro- 
duced in contempt of the law making it piracy, through 
Florida, and, at points along the coast of the Gulf of Mex- 
ico. The number thus introduced has been variously esti- 
mated, by speakers in Congress, but never lower than 13,- 
000 per annum, besides the multitudes smuggled into Texas 
from the Island of Cuba, or openly received in some instan- 
ces, as has been stated, in contempt of law. Thus all our 
slaves were stolen from Africa, directly in their own perso?iSj 
or in the persons of their ancestors, oMd douhly stoleii when 
iifants at their birth: for human beings are boun free. 

Now, vvdth these facts kept in view, what does my broth- 
er's text say ? " From the heathen ye shall steal ? No ! 
" From them shall ye buy bondmen," etc. Thus his own 
text, with his own interpretation, will not justify American 
slave-holding ; for our slaves were stolen — stolen in their 
persons or their parents — stolen by the aid of boxes of mus- 



334 DISCUSSION 

kets, powder, gimflints, and savage cliiefs made drunk and 
employed as agents to steal them. Now his text has not a 
word about stealing. And my brother himself, does not go 
quite so far as to say that it is no sin to steal slaves ; he only 
contends that it is right to hold them after they are stolen. 
Thus, even his own text with his own interpretation yields 
no justification to American slavery, without grossly per- 
verting his own meaning of it. 

But I now proceed to my brother's entrenchments — to his 
main grand proposition: Did God permit the Jews to hold 
slaves ? I deny it. And if he fails here, his whole argu- 
ment fails ; for it all depends on God's permission to the 
Jews to hold slaves. 

This whole question turns on the status^ the civil and 
social condition of the Hebrew " hondmcn^^ named in his 
text. Were they slaves or not? I shall not here stop to go 
into Hebrew criticism with my brother. It is easily shown, 
taking a common Hebrew Bible and Gesenius's Lexicon, 
that the phrase, {hev. xxv, 46.) " they shall be your bond- 
men forever^'' does not mean, that each man of them should 
be a slave during his life ; but, " they," i. e., that sort of 
people, "shall be your bondmen forever" — that is, that sort 
of people shall always supply your bond-servants. Thus it 
is in the Hebrew — " Forever of them shall ye serve your- 
selves.^'' ' You shall always get that sort of servants from 
that sort of people.' The Hebrew word, translated " buy," 
meaning, "^"e^," '■'• ohtain^^ '■'"procure^^ '■'■ buy.'''' I shall not, 
however, stop, to translate Hebrew, or read commentators ; 
but shall inquire directly, mlo what state were those ser- 
vants, thus procured of the heathen, brought, when they 

CAME AMONG THE JeWS ? 

And, in the first place, they were brought into a country, 
and among a people, who possessed, like Ohio, a free con- 
stitution. They were brought from slave States into what I 
shall show was a free State: it was as if the people of Ohio 
were allowed to procure servants from the people of Ken- 
tucky, and when thus procured, they were free, after paying 



ON sla\t:ry. 335 

their redemption-money, by serving you six years. The 
soil of Ohio has never been legally defiled by slavery. If 
a slave is bi ought here by his master's consent, he is, from 
that moment, a free man — though that unhappy clause re- 
specting fugitives from service still exists — a provision per- 
fectly anomalous in such a government as ours ; and though 
certain odious and unconstitutional State statutes have been 
enacted to carry it out. 

If a Hebrew bought a bond-servant from the heathen, 
and brought him into the Jews' land, and if he was not kept 
in slavery there ; their taking slave-men into a free land is 
not, cannot be, any justification for taking free men into a 
slave land. By the Jewish constitution, the status into which 
the servant was brought, was nothing like the status into 
which the African slave is brought, when introduced into 
our country. The pith and point of the whole question 
turns on what was this status? It is of no use, in this 
question, to peddle commentaries, and criticise words and 
marshal and march such witnesses as mere verbal critics, 
who are such thorough-paced slaves to authority, whose 
ideas have been baked so stiff by half a century spent in 
their study, that they can hardly go to bed without the con- 
currence of a committee. [A laugh.] But, for the settle- 
ment of this question, we must go to the history of the 
times, and consider the facts connected with the whole case, 
and draw just conclusions from known principles and ad- 
mitted facts. It is wholly a practical question. The testi- 
mony of mere verbal commentators, and lexicographers, and 
grammarians ought not to decide in a question like this. 
Men of mere learning, for the most part, are timid drudges, 
useful and indispensable in their place, but they should not 
be brought to decide questions of this kind. They cannot 
be expected to study them profoundly as broad practical 
questions affecting the human race should be studied. It is 
not in their profession. They are commentators upon the 
language of scripture, and they are obliged to consider 
every question that can arise relating to the interests of man- 



S36 DISCUSSION 

kind, in all time and in all eternity; and to consider per- 
fectly an infinite range of topics, they must have a mind 
like God's. It would be a miracle, if they could enter into 
a thorough practical consideration of every subject which 
they are obliged, as commentators, to write about. They 
are men who, like almanac-makers, take the tables which 
have been prepared by other men, and adopt them as 
authority in their own works. It is no reproach to them to 
say so. They would not feel it such. And for my brother 
to stand here quoting them as absolute authority, upon ihe 
great moral and practical question of slavery, is, in my 
view, " operose agere nihilP 

The whole question turns on the single question what 
was the status of these Hebrew bond-servants 1 And I 
shall show you that, whatever it was, it was not slavery. 
My first argument, and one which I beg you to weigh with 
great attention, is this. If they were slaves^ the translators 
of our Bible ivould have called them so. They have never 
in one instance, translated the Hebrev/ word ''■ebedh?^* 
(which my brother pronounces ebed, though he says, in 
his pamphlet, that abolitionists have little learning, and per- 
haps, I have no right, and ought not to criticise him) by tlie 
Engl isli word .sZ(2re5. Our version of the Bible was issued 
by royal authority, in the year of our Lord, 1607; the 
year of the first settlement of the United States, at James- 
town, Virginia : in an age of Biblical study, and by forty- 
seven men learned, not only in books, but in affairs. Now 
in only two places in the Old and New Testament, have the 
translators used the word slaves. One is Jeremiah, ii, 14, 
in which instance it is put in Italics, showing there is no cor- 
responding word for it in the Hebrew. And the other is 
Revelation, xviii, 13, (where the original Greek is not " Dou- 
los^^ but '' Somaton''' the genitive plural of '^ So?na" — "a 
human body.") Where "slaves and souls of me/i'^ are 
spoken of as the traffic of the mother of harlots. 

[frime expired. 



ON SLAVERY. ^337 

[MR. rice's twelfth SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen Moderators^ and Fellow Citizens: 

I perceive that my friend is determined to occupy my time 
as far as possible in correcting his statements. He first mis- 
represents even my pronunciation of a Hebrew word, and 
then sneers at my mispronunciation ! 

The gentleman complains of my remark concerning the 
state of his church. I should not have said a word concern- 
ing it, had he not told us, that the churches in the slave-hold- 
ing States were Avithering under the influence of slavery: 
my reply was designed to prove by facts that his represen- 
tation is not correct, but that, on the contrary, there are 
multitudes of churches at the South and West more flourish- 
ing than his. It was a fair reply, because those churches 
are involved in the sin, (if it be in itself a sin,) of slave-hold- 
ing, and his church is under the influence of the purest abo- 
litionism. The Second Presbyterian church in St. Louis, for 
example, which was organized in 1836, as a small colony, 
has grown in the space of seven years to the number of about 
450 members ; and in the mean time, has sent out one or 
two colonies to organize new churches. Thus it is proved 
by facts, the best kind of evidence, that slave-holding is not 
so heinous a sin as to wither the piety of the churches, and 
provoke God to withhold his spirit and blessing. 

My brother says he would not have invited the present 
discussion, but for my lectures recently delivered in this 
city ; but he took care not to tell you, that those lectures 
were delivered in consequence of the violent attacks made 
upon report of the last General Assembly by the Watchman 
of the Valley^ and the Morning Herald, abolitionist papers 
of this city. The attack began on the part of the abolition- 
ists themselves ; yet now he would represent himself in this 
debate, as acting only on the defensive ! 

Mr. B. attempts to escape from the contradiction in which 
he involved himself, by saying, that a^ar^ of my doctrine is 
quite acceptable to pro-slavery men in the South. This fact, 
22 



338 DISCUSSION 

however, is a poor argument to prove it false ; for he will ad- 
mit, that many parts of even the Bible itself, are acceptable 
to ungodly men. What thief or drunkard objects to the dec- 
laration that " God is love ?" or to the truth, that God for- 
gives " iniquity, transgression and sin ?" But shall we reject 
the scriptures because they contain truths which even the 
most ungodly men do not object to ? The gentleman would 
condemn my views on the subject of slavery, because, as 
he affirms, southern slave-holders are pleased with a part of 
them. Then must he not for the same reason, condemn the 
gospel itself? 

The gentleman says, he did not object to an appeal to the 
Greek and Hebrew scriptures to settle this controversy ; but 
he said, that certain men go back to the dark, despotic ages 
•to support slavery. But the audience have not forgotten, 
that he represented those who insist on going to the original 
languages, as bats that flutter about the tops of high towers, 
and as rats that retreat into dark cellars. They remember, 
too, how he sneered at Dr. Junkin for pursuing this very 
course, and told us that he ^^ JunJdnized^^ the people who 
heard him, with his Greek and Hebrew, till they had no 
sense left ! 

[Mr. BlanchaTcD explained — I said that he JunJcinized 
them, till they had not two substantial ideas left in their 
heads on the subject he was discussing \] 

The gentleman, then, from his own account of the mat- 
ter, said, the audience had not two ideas on the subject of 
slavery, because Dr. Junkin appealed, in his discussion of 
it, to the Greek and Hebrew ; and yet he now admits the 
propriety of doing the veiy same thing ! 

He quoted Dr. Adam Clarke's opinion of slavery "for 
s'picey But all the spice was created by his own mistake ; 
it would have been more poignant, and would have had a bet- 
ter relish, had it been a reply to what I had said. It is true 
that Dr. Clarke did denounce slavery as my brother says ; 
yet as a commentator, he was compelled by the force of 
truth to give the same explanation of slave-holding among 



ON SLAVEilY. 339 

the Jews, which I have given; and his testimony is the more 
important from the fact that he was a most decided anti-slave- 
ry man. He was one of the men who go back into the dark 
and despotic ages of antiquity, and though he sought nothing 
there to justify slavery, he found the same proof with me 
that it was permitted by God himself. The opinion of such 
a man greatly strengthens my argument. 

My friend says, that the " pro-slavery men," (as he calls 
those who differ from the abolitionists) do not reason from 
general principles, but run to isolated texts of the Bible. 
Now this audience knows better ; for they have listened at- 
tentively to a long argument I offered from the golden rule 
— an argument to which, as yet, he has attempted no reply. 
My brother forgets. We do go^to general principles, as well 
as to Bible texts. And Dr. Cunningham, to whom I have 
so often referred, does the same. For example: 

" A man may be placed in sucn-a condition as that the only 
act of humanity he can discharge, is just to buy a man, and 
make him his slave. He acquires a legal right to him, and may 
do injury according to the law ; but this does not follow. 
*^ * * A minister who lived in a slave State made it his busi- 
ness not to acquire property in slaves, but to hire them. 
One woman he hired. Her owner's circumstances became 
embarrassed. This woman came to her master not her 
owner, and told him, she had reason to think she would be 
sold, and besought him to buy her. He replied, that he did 
not wish to buy slaves. The woman, who was a religious 
person took it so much to heart that she could not do her 
work, nor take any meat, lying about her kitchen, crying 
and howling, till at last he was obliged to borrow money and 
buy the woman, as the only way in which he could really 
perform an act of humanity towards her. * * * It is utter 
folly and sheer madness to be denouncing every man, sim- 
ply because he stands in the relation of a master to a slave, 
as aman-stealer ; &c. * * * What has been the great source 
of all the evil, is, that the abolitionists, finding they could 
not answer the scriptural argument, have made it their busi- 



340 DISCUSSION 

ness just to slander and calumniate the American churches.'* 
This is the writer who my brother says, agrees with him. 
He makes his appeal to general principles of benevolence, 
to justify a man's purchasing a slave to better his condition. 
This case I have presented again and again, but I cannot 
induce my friend to touch it. 

The gentleman affects great contempt for German critics, 
men, as he informs us, of timid and narrow minds, who 
*' can hardly get to bed without a committee ;" and he ridi- 
cules verbal criticism as a means of arriving at the truth. I 
had really supposed, that words were signs of ideas ; and 
that the only method of getting the ideas of an author, was 
by understanding his toords. Will the gentleman be good 
enough to inform us, how w^ can get at the ideas presented in 
the Bible, except by inquirii^ into the meaning of the words 
used? I did quote one, aira only one, German lexicogi-a- 
pher, viz : Gesenius, whose reputation as a learned man and 
a'standard authority, is too well established to be affected by 
the ridicule of Mr. Bla.nchard. He only exposes himself 
by affecting to Jgiugh at such men. But since he has so lit- 
tle respect for the authorities I have quoted, / challenge him 
once more to 'produce one respectable covimentator or critic 
who gives to the scriptures toivhich I havt referred, a differ- 
ent interpretation from that which I have given. He has 
studied and discussed this subject for years past ; and there- 
fore he is just the man to produce such authorities, if they 
exist. 

I will now pay my respects to his answer to my argu* 
ments, so far as he has attempted to answer them. He says, 
in the first place, admitting the bondmen of the Jews to 
have been slaves, this fact does not authorize American slave' 
ry. We are not discussing the question, whether American 
slavery is right. The question proposed by the friends of 
the gentleman, relates simply to the morality of the relation 
between master and slave. Let us settle the principle, and 
we Can then apply it. But he attempts to escape the difficulty 
in which he is involved by the clear declarations of the Bible 



ON SLAVERY. 341 

by bringing forward a particular kind of slavery, of which 
the question before us, says nothing. 

But why would not the fact, that the Jews were permitted 
to hold slaves, justify others in doing the same? Because, 
as Mr. B. says — those whom the Jews were permitted to 
purchase, were under the curse of God. Admit this state- 
ment to be strictly true ; will he maintain, that the Jews were 
at liberty to form a relation in itself sinful, because the per- 
son sustaining the relation of slaves, were under the curse 
of God ? If so, he goes very far toward fully justifying 
American slavery ; for Canaan, from whom the Africans de- 
scended, was not only cursed of God, but expressly doomed, 
to be " servant of servants." Does this fact justify men in 
making slaves of the Africans ? If so, surely the question 
must be given up. If not, how cati the fact that the Canaan- 
ites were cursed, justify th^Je\fs in holding them as slaves? 
To say in one breath, that slave-holding is in itself sinful, 
and consequently sinful under all circumstances ; and in the 
next, that in cases where nations are under the curse of God, 
men may be justified in reducing them to slavery, is to be 
chargeable with a flat contradiction. 

The gentleman's second answer is, that God may permit 
that which is in itself sinful, and thatj^e did so in granting to 
the Jews permission to divorce tKeir -^ives, "because of the 
hardness of their hearts." I answer, God did not give such 
permission for the sake of hard-hearted men, but for the sake 
of their wives, whom their wickedness lead them to treat 
cruelly. The husband might greatly sin in making a divorce 
desired; but it was not in itself wrong that the oppressed 
wife should be released from her obligations to a cruel hus- 
band. The doctrine, that God may give men permission 
to do that which is in itself sinful, appears to me near of 
kin to blasphemy. I find nothing in the Bible to counten- 
ance such an idea ; nor have I ever before heard it advanced. 

But he tells us that God permitted slavery in the sense of 
not hindering it. But was that my argument ? Did I con- 
tend that God only permitted the Jews to form the relation 



342 DISCUSSION. 

of master and slave by not hindering it? T said, and 1 
proved^ that He gave express 'permission to form the rela- 
tion ; and therefore it could not be sinful. Has he replied to 
this argument, and proved that such permission was not 
given ? He has not, and he cannot. The argument, there- 
fore, remains unanswered. 

But if, as the gentlemen contends, God may permit a rela- 
tion in itself sinful, why cannot abolitionists do the same? 
Are they holier than God? Do they feel themselves in 
conscience bound to oppose and denounce what He permitted, 
and to purify the church from that which He permitted to 
remain in it? 

But the brother says that buj^'irTg slaves is slave trading^ 
which " Dr. Rice " himself d'^nounces ; and if God permit- 
ted it, he sanctioned the slave trade! Not at all: to buy 
a slave, wdth a view to improv^his condition, is not slave 
trading. Speculating in slaves^ for the sake of gain, is 
slave trading. Can the brother' s^liscriminating mind dis- 
cover no difference between them.? The difference is as 
obvious as between light and^darkness. Those purchased 
by the Jews, as I said, were generally already in slavery — 
in cruel bondage ; and God, as I suppose, permitted the Jews 
to buy them in order iha^^ir condition might be mitigated, 
and that they miglu^om'e"**to ..the knowledge of the true 
religion. 

Again, he says, my argument fails, because the Africans 
were all originally stolen ; and, if we buy them, w^e are 
guilty of the sin of man-stealing. I reply, that if this prin- 
ciple is sound, there is not a man in Ohio who can, honestly 
and innocently, hold the farm he owns: for the land was, 
most of it, originally taken by force or fraud from the In- 
dians. Besides, did not the heathen masters of whom the 
Israelites were permitted to buy, obtain their slaves by w^ar 
and violence ? And if so, where is the difference between 
their case and that of our negroes? Abolitionists labor hard 
w^hen they get near the Bible. Again, if the relation be in 
itself wrong, the manner of forming it can never make it 



ON SLAVERY. 343 

right. And, by admitting that the sinfulness of slave- hold- 
ing depends upon the manner of our getting slaves, the gen- 
tleman virtually gives up the question in dispute, and admits 
that the relation is not wrong in itself, but is only made 
wrong by circumstances. 

But the brother reminds us that God never said, the Isra- 
elites might steal slaves. That again, is not the question we 
are debating. Who, in his senses, would debate it? Every 
body knows that to buy, is to obtain something, by giving a 
consideration for it. Is this stealing? 

But he tells us, the Jews bought their wives. This argu- 
ment has been anticipated and answered. When a man 
bought a woman for a wife^ she became his wife ; but when 
he bought a man or woman for a ser-uant^ s"uch persons be- 
came his servants. What, then, has the fact that men some- 
times purchased wives^ to do with the subject before us? 

Again, Mr. B. seeks to evade the argum^ent by informing 
us, that the Hebrew word, translated " Z»zi^," sometimes sig- 
nifies simply, to acquire, no matter by what means. I admit 
it ; but unfortunately for his repty, the bondmen of Jews, we 
are distinctly informed, were bought ^^wiih moneyP Now 
I. suppose, to get, to obtain a thing " with money," is to buy 
it ; and when it is bought, it is mine for the purposes for 
which it is bought. 

The gentleman says, if a man buy a slave for the purpose 
of liberating him, he commits no sin. The abolitionists, I 
believe, show very little disposition to liberate slaves in this 
way. But did God give the Jews permission to buy slaves, 
on condition that they should liberate them ? He passed a 
law that if a man smote out his servant's tooth or his eye, he 
should let him go free for the sake of his tooth or his eye. 
Would God have passed a law requiring a servant to be lib- 
erated on a certain condition, if he were already free ? But 
God said of the servant, he is his master^ s mane?/. Would 
this be true, if he had only redeemed him from slavery, and 
liberated him ? Why, the gentleman's doctrine makes the 
Bible speak contradictions and nonsense. It represents God 



344 DISCUSSION 

as commandino" a man under certain circumstances to liber' 
aie a free man I Such are tlie arguments by which the 
gentleman expects to persuade Kentuckians to abandon the 
man who denies that slave-holding is in itself sinful ! 

But the argument which he seems to think conclusive on 
tliis subject, is this : If the word evecl meant slave, the transla- 
tors of our English Bible would have so rendered it. This is 
indeed a miserable evasion. They translated it servant and 
bonds ervajit. Does not Mr. B. know, that the Latin word 
servus, from which the English word servant is derived, sig- 
nifies slave, and that the word servant, when our translation 
was made, had its literal and proper meaning. But if the 
word servant does not mean slave, will he tell us the mean- 
ing of bond-servant, by which the word eved is translated ? 
Does it not mean slave ? 

His last argument is blown to the winds ; and I now 
cheerfully leave the audience to decide, whether his replies 
to my arguments from the Bible, are of any force. Have 
they overthrown one position I have taken ? 

I will now read another extract from Dr. Cunningham's 
letter. He says — " In three of the leading slave States, con- 
taining one- fourth of the whole slave population of the 
Union, there are only eight settled Presbyterian ministers ; 
and the churches in the country are very much in the same 
position as the missionaries we send to the West Indies, and 
ichom ice strictly enjoin not to open their mouths on slavery. 
This, in 1834, we regarded as the right way of dealiiig 
with that question., in certain circumstances ; and the case 
is similar in America. Noticithstanding, there have some 
people, in ten years, gone into the opposite extreme of re- 
fusing to hold communion ivith churches that practically do 
what ive expressly enjoined our missionaries to do. This is 
clear proof that there is gross ignorance, or great prejudice. 
The churches in the slave States must take their choice, be- 
tween virtually letting this matter alone, or taking it up, and 
being expelled." 
i^ The gentleman has been anxious to make the impression, 



ON SLAVERY. ; 345 

that the Church of Scotland had adopted, substantially, abo- 
lition principles. But Dr. Cunningham informs us, that, in 
1834, she forbade her missionaries to the West Indies to open 
their mouths on this subject ; and thus he exposes the incon- 
sistency of the abolitionists who urged that church to hold 
no fellowship with ours, unless she would exclude all slave- 
holders from her communion. 

I am now done with that part of my argument, which is 
derived from the Old Testament. I am also prepared to 
hear the gentleman's hour-and-a-half argument, with which 
he has so repeatedly threatened me ; and it is my purpose 
fairly to meet and refute it. Having done this, I purpose to 
inquire into the teachings of the New Testament; and I will 
not only prove from the New Testament, that slave-holding 
is not in itself sinful, but that every respectable critic and 
commentator sustains fully my interpretation of the passages 
in which the subject of slave-holding is brought to view. 
INIr. Blanchard, I am aware, holds commentators and critics 
in great contempt ; but perhaps this intelligent audience do 
not view them in the same light. I expect to prove, that 
the primitive churches took the same view of slavery, and 
pursued the same course of conduct in regard to it, that we 
do. Finally, I expect to prove, that the views we take, are 
those which have abolished slavery wherever it has been 
peaceably abolished. [Time expired. 



Monday Afternoon, 2 o'clock. 

[MR. BLANCHARD's THIRTEENTH SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen Moderators^ and Gentlemen and Ladies^ Fellow- 
Citizens : 

While the house is getting still, and to close up what of 
this debate precedes my Old Testament argument ; I will 
notice some of those points which my brother has brought 
forward in this discussion, and to which he seems to attach 
importance. I have written down for the sake of condens- 



346 DISCUSSION 

ing, brief replies on several points wliicli I will read : — not 
because I deem the points important, but that I may not seem 
to leave anything without attempting a candid and clear an- 
swer. The following are all the points hitherto unanswerei 
that I can recollect, which I have considered deserving of no- 
tice ; excepting some personalities which it is not worth while 
to reply to. 

1. He asks : " When an elder of the church was implor- 
ed to buy a slave to save him from being sold from his fam- 
ily ; did the elder sin in buying that slave?" 

Answer. If he bought him to free him ; No — that is re- 
demption. If he kept him as his slave ; Yes : he did sin : 
because he has no right to keep slaves or concubines in order 
to keep them from being abused. Slavery and concubinage 
being unscriptural relations. 2. He sinned because he still 
held the slave under all the horrid liabilities of slavery. Ho 
might die the hour after he bought him, and the slave is sold 
from his family for a division among merciless heirs ; or he 
might become a bankrupt, and the slave is sold by creditors. 
Thus to do an uncertain good to one suffering slave, he com- 
mits the sin of sanctioning the whole slave system by him- 
self holding slaves. He thus does a general evil that a par- 
ticular good may come. Being a pious man, his example 
leads a thousand young men, who had scruples, to become 
S'lave-holders. They go into slavery, fall before its tempta- 
tions, and sink to endless ruin, holding on to this one pious 
man's skirts. If he bought the slave to keep him as his 
property he certainly sinned. 

2d Case, " A pious elder asked his synod what he should 
do with some 70 slaves or more, who were a bill of cost to 
liim, altogether earning less than they consumed?" 

Answer. Free them by all means, or, in a httle while, 
they will run him so in debt that the sheriff will sell them in 
lots or individually, to satisfy creditors, and suit purchasers. 
Surely 70 persons earning less than tliey cost must soon eat 
up his estate. If he can remove to a free State, do so. If 
this is not convenient, let him do as an infidel sheriff in Vir- 



ON SLAVERY, 347 

gmia did — call his slaves into the house — tell them solemnly 
they are free — that he will pay them fair wages for fair 
work — and that they must maintain tlieir own wives, child- 
ren and old people ; and he will fmd they will earn more 
for "cash" than for " lash." Then let him take the " True 
America7i^^ and begin to persuade his neighbors to do like- 
wise. 

3. When urged with the fact that slave-holders have no title 
to their slaves but that which they bought of kidnappers and 
traders ; and therefore in justice do not own them. He says ; 
that argument would destroy our title to lands which were by 
force or fraud wrested from the Indians. 

Answer. Law and justice give stolen property to the 
true owner, when he can be found. But if no owner is 
found, occupancy and possession give title. If an Indian 
can show as good a title to a piece of land as a slave can to 
his head, hands, feet, and person, which God gave to him^ 
and not to another man, let that Indian have the land, by all 
means. If he can show an equitable right to it, though less 
strong, than the slave's right to himself, still let him have it. 
But it is a capital error, in Mr. Rice, to bring the title ac- 
quired to the land of dead Indians, whose heirs are un- 
known, to justify the holding of living stolen men, who are 
always present to claim themselves ; and who do claim 
themselves every time they say, in human speech, ^^ my 
head;' " my hands" " my body,'' &c. ; thus showing, that, 
under God, whose mark and image are upon him, the man 
belongs to himself There was a law in England, which 
provided that the king's goods should be marked with the 
figure of an arrow — and if goods having this mark were 
found in the possession of a man, without the king's author- 
ity, he was, by that single mark, convicted of having stolen 
the king's goods, and punished accordingly. Every human 
being has God's mark upon him, and belongs to God first, 
and, under God, to himself The mark of the King of 
Kings is his own image, and the man who has in his pos- 
session a human being, is, by the mark of God upon him, 



348 DISCUSSION 

convicted of robbing tiie Almighty — that he may oppress 
his fellow man. 

4. INIy opponent still reasons about " Hagar," as though 
she ^Yas not only the bondwoman^ or hound-woman of Abra- 
ham, but the actual slave or property of Abraham. 

Answer. If Hagar was Abraham''s property, and if she 
was sent back by the angel as Abraham's slave, then Dr. 
Rice is bound, by every principle of justice, and by this 
angel's example, to help to take and send back runaway 
slaves to their owners. But he has told us that he has seen 
slaves running away, but never would do any thing to send 
them back — thus showing, that he, in heart, does not believe 
in his own argument — that he knows that Hagar was not 
a slave, and that Kentucky slaves are not justly the property 
of their masters. For if they are the just property of their 
masters, then Dr. Rice is wicked to see them running off, 
without trying to send them back. For, "If thou seest 
thine enemy's ox, or his ass, going astray, thou shall surely 
bring it back to him again." Exod. xxiii, 40. He draws a 
distinction, however, between not preve7iting the escape of 
a slave, and aiding him to escape — condemning abolitionists 
for the latter, while he practices the former. But the dis- 
tance between " 7iot preventing,^' and actually aiding^ es- 
caping slaves is so short, that I commend my brother to the 
careful watching of the southern slave-holders, lest, in a lit- 
tle while, he be found actually helping slaves to run away. 
[A laugh.] 

5. Again. A Massachusetts man went to South Carolina 
to live with certain slaves who fell to him, as the best plan 
he could devise to do them (the slaves) good. Was he a 
sinner ? 

Answer. If he went there, and honestly told the negroes 
they were free, and avoided the appearance of evil, by let- 
ting his neighbors know that he was no slave-holder, but 
had simply come to help the negroes out of difficulty, he was 
no sinner ; but if not — if he simply set down among them 
as a slave-holder — he was a gross sinner. For he left a 



ON SLAVERY. 349 

free State, where he and his family were surrounded by the 
influences of freedom, for a slave land, and a practice of 
slavery and its corrupting influences. He made himself 
and family props to support the rotting fabric of slavery, to 
the injury of millions, with the precarious and uncertain 
hope of benefitting a few slaves. 

6. He says Constantine made a law forbidding to separate 
husband and wife, and yet slavery still existed. He argues 
thence that separating husband and wife is not an ingredient 
part of slavery. 

Answer. In forbidding the separation of families, Con- 
stantine was destroying slavery. He was driving his legis- 
lative axe into the very meat and bones of slavery. He was 
a wise legislator and knew what he was doing. He knew 
that a repeal of the family state was of the essence of 
slavery ; and therefore began his work of destroying slavery 
by stopping family separation. If Constantine had added 
legal personality and wages, his law would have been an 
immediate abolition law. As it was it stabbed slavery to 
the heart. 

"Then," replies he, "Kentucky Presbyterians do not 
hold slaves in full, for they do not separate families, and the 
law of the church forbids it." 

Answer. Kentucky Presbyterians do hold slaves in full, 
for they hold them by a tenure which denies marriage and 
parentage to them, which Constantine did not. They hold 
them in a state of virtual and real separation, hourly ready 
for actual separation ; and their slaves are constantly sepa- 
rated by sheriffs for debts and by administrators for a divi- 
sion, which division the heirs have . a right to order, and 
Presbyterians, when dead, cannot prevent. Witness the 
slave coffles or gangs annually driven from the upper slave 
States to the lower, and w^ho pass by our city. They used 
to land here, but blessed be God, such is the state of feeling 
now, that they do this seldom or no more. The law of the 
church against it is but an inoperative conscience-plaster. 
Kentucky Presbyterians holding slaves, are slave-holders. 



S50 DISCUSSION 

7. Again, he says. " True moral principles strike every 
lionest mind, as true, and, by their own force, command 
assent." And he asks, " if the doctrine be true that slave- 
holding is sin, why does it not so strike every mind? " 

Answer. It does strike every mind when themselves or 
their families are concerned. No sane man is willing that 
himself and posterity, in all time, should be slaves. Do 
unto others as you would have them do unto you. Let the 
slave law strike one of Dr. Rice's children, and the wicked- 
ness of it would certainly strike him. 

8. He told you I was willing to '^ keep the slaves from 
voting, after they are emancipated." What I said upon that 
point was, that I leave their political rights to political men, 
to be determined by exact political justice. Abolition 
has done with them when they are free as unnaturalized 
foreigners, who are free, though they cannot vote. 

Tell an Irishman, before he is entitled to vote, that he is 
a' slave, and my word for it, Patrick will show that his fist 
is free, at least. [A laugh.] 

If he made any other points which my present arguments 
do not answer, I am willing he should have all the benefit of 
their going unanswered, and that they may have, with you 
whatever weight they deserve. I hope now, that my broth- 
er will not continue to complain of me, as if I were unwil- 
ling to answer him to the best of my ability. Of course, it 
is not to be expected that I would set my ability in competi- 
tion with so grave and learned a Doctor of Divinity, but I 
mean not to be outdone by him in candor, and an honest de- 
sire to vindicate the truth. 

I must now be excused from noticing further his line of 
argument, and be permitted to go straight through with my 
own. Yet, if my brotlier is very anxious that I should an- 
swer any questions I may possibly turn aside for a few min- 
utes, to do so. I will notice briefly his ''golden rule" argu- 
ment, and then consider the Old Testament bond service. 
This argument of Dr. Rice m.ay be found in his printed pamph- 
let, pages 39, and 41. He says of Christ's command re- 



ON SLAVEUY. 351 

quiring us to do to others as we would they should do to 
us ; — '' Evidently it requires us to treat others^ as we would 
reasonably expect and desire them to treat uSj if we were 

IN THEIR SITUATION." (Lect. p. 39.) 

That is, the "golden rule" only requires the slave-holder 
to treat his slave as he might reasonably expect to be treated 
if he were in that slave's condition. The fact that the slave 
is a slave, is taken for granted to be right, so far as the owner 
is concerned. Then he says on page 41. That the golden 
rule requires a man to become a slave-holder, who buys a 
slave to keep him from suffering a worse fate. " The truth 
is in such cases the golden rule makes the Christian 

THE owner of a SLAVE." {Lect. p. 41., 

I think I shall be able to show you that this exposition, 
which deserves to be called the '■^ slave-holder'' s golden rule^'' 
in the first place, proceeds upon a plain denial of God's gold- 
en rule. 2nd, That it contains a logical error. 3d, That it 
contains a gross immorality. 

The reason on which the rules rests, which. requires men 
to do to others as they would have others do to them, is, that 
men are equal. But this slave-holder's rule contradicts this 
fundamental truth of God's word, that " God has made of 
one blood all the nations of men^"* and if of one blood, they 
are of equal blood. This exposition of Dr. Rice, assumes 
that there is one blood of the slave-holder ; another blood of 
the slave ; and they are of different conditions instead of 
being by nature on the same footing. It assumes the inequal- 
ity of the human race to be right, lohich is the very questioTi 
in dispute. It goes upon the supposition that one man is 
naturally a slave-holder, and another a slave. The question 
lies back of this. Abolitionists claim that injury is done in 
making a man a slave, or, in assuming towards a man the re- 
lation of his owner, and keeping him a slave. Dr. Rice as' 
fumcs that men are by God's law divided into two classes, 
master and slave ; and says that the whole duty required of 
the master class, by the golden rule is, to treat slaves " ai 
we might reasonably expect to be treated, if we were slaves I 



S52 DISCUSSION 

Suppose that my father, caught a boy and put him in a dun- 
geon, and gave me the key. I put the key in my pocket 
and keep the boy in the dungeon. My father in this case is 
the kidnapper and I am the slave-holder. Dr. Rice, we will 
say, is defining my duty under his golden rule towards 
that imprisoned boy. Doctor, I ask, " what, say you, is 
my duty to the boy imprisoned by my father?" He 
replies ; — " Do unto others as you would have others do unto 
you if you were in their situation.''' " Well, but. Doctor, how 
do you understand that rule ? Shall I let him out ?" " By no 
means" says he; — "All you are required to do, is to keep 
him there for life, and treat him just as kindly as you might 
reasonably expect to he treated if you were in his place. That 
is, as men who are shut up in dungeons may reasonably ex- 
pect to be treated by those who keep them there." 

Is there a man on earth capable of knowing right and 
wrong who would not instantly feel that such an exposition 
of the golden rule carries a monstrous fraud in .it, if applied to 
himself. It denies that " God has made of one blood (and 
equal because one) all nations of men." Dr. Rice's religion 
is the religion of a privileged class. And it is so with every 
religion which is based on radical error. Puseyism, and 
Popery, <fcc., withhold from the common mass in favor of 
their priesthood, rights which God has given alike to all men. 
Dr. Rice allows the slave-holders to hold the slaves, before 
he begins to apply the golden rule to them ; and his exposi- 
tion, like Puseyism, is based upon a denial of the law of 
human equality. It takes for granted that God has made it 
the destiny of one portion of his creatures to be slaves and 
another portion masters, and that masters fulfil their duty to 
the slaves by treating them according to that destiny. And 
this monstrous perversion of this holy and beautiful law of 
Christ, is preached in nearly the same words by professed 
ministers of the gospel, throughout the South, perverting slave- 
holders' consciences, sinking the rights of the slaves — and dim- 
ming and diminishing the light of justice in the word of God. 
i 2. In the second place, I observe, that my friend's exposi- 



ON SLA\TEIIY. 353 

tion contains a logical error. It is a clear peiitio principii 
— a begging of the question in debate. 

He assumes there is nothing against the golden rule, in 
keeping men in a state of slavery. But that is the very 
thing abolitionists deny, and the very question we are here 
to debate. And there is no other way for Dr. Rice to get 
his vindication of slavery over the golden rule, but to take 
the question, whether slave-holding is according to it, for 
granted ; and apply the rule to master and slave as to men 
in different situations, equally innocent. 

3. But there is a worse than logical error in this slave- 
holder's golden rule, manufactured by Dr. Rice. It contains 
a gross immorality. 

The original precept, as it stands in the New Testament, 
is the most precious of ail the practical rules which our Sav- 
iour taught, and is justly called " golden," from the most pre- 
cious of metals. Yet, in Dr. Rice's hands, it sanctions an 
immorality., by giviiig to the slave-holder the benefit of his 
own, and his father'' s wrong. My father wickedly locks a 
man up in a dungeon, and I keep him there. His exposi- 
tion allows me to keep him in that " situation," and only re- 
quires me to treat him as I might reasonably expect an indif- 
ferent man to treat me, who should find me in a dungeon 
throuo-h no fault of his own, without his connivance, and 
against his consent. He thus gives me the benefit of my 
father s wrong. Or to drop the figure : Dr. Rice allows the 
present slave-holders, whose ancestors wickedly enslaved the 
present slaves, to adopt the sin of their fathers — to stand in 
it — to take the benefit of it, and yet stand on a moral equal- 
ity with their slaves; applying the golden rule to them both 
as equally right in the eye of God's law. 

Now it is a principle, not only of com.mon justice, but of 
the common law, that " no man shall take the benefit of his 
own wrong." If, for instance, you pull down the fence, and 
let your neighbor's cattle upon your own crops, in order to 
get damages ; the law gives you no damages, because your 
crime is a part of the case, and you shall not have the bene- 
23 



354 DISCUSSION 

fit of your own wrong. But my brother gives the slave- 
holder the benefit of his own wrong in keeping the man in 
slavery, and of the wrong act by which the kidnapper first 
placed him there: thus sanctioning, by Christianity, and the 
voice of a minister of Christ, a principle which is cast out 
of the court-house, as polluting the fountains of justice, and 
perverting and destroying men's rights. Thus he places 
Christianity in a position to be despised and trampled be- 
neath the hoofs of the State, as having a lower standard of 
rectitude, than that by which civil judges, advocates, and 
juries are bound, in trying the most paltry interests and ques- 
tions of right. 

Contrast now. Dr. Rice's vindication of the present slave- 
holders, on the ground that they did not make men slaves, 
but only kept those in slavery who were enslaved by their 
fathers ; with the ground which Christ took, in a like case, 
against those who condemned their fathers for killing the 
prophets ; yet kept up the spirit of their fathers' crime, by 
persecuting the prophets of their own day, saying: — " If we 
had lived in the days oj our fathers we would not have been 
partakers with them in the blood of the prophets i^ precisely 
as Dr. Rice, and his friends, the slave-holders, pretend 
to condemn the enslaving of freemen, while they agree 
in justifying the continuance of the crime upon the per- 
sons and descendants of the enslaved. What did the 
Saviour do, in adjusting the balance-sheet of sin with those 
Pharisees ? Did he give them the slave-holders' exposition 
of the golden rule, which blinks the sin of both sire and 
son? Did he tell them that " they found the prophets a per- 
secuted, hated, despised race ; and they fulfilled the law of 
love by treating them as well as a persecuted race can rea- 
sonably expect to be treated 1 No : never. Instead of jus- 
tifying the continuers of persecution who condemned its be- 
ginners, as Dr. Rice justifies the continuers of slavery who 
condemn the first enslavers : he took the sins of all the for- 
vier ge?ierations, ajid laid them over upon the heads of the 
present. Christ took precisely the opposite ground to Dr. 



ON SLAVERY. 355 

Rice. Instead of giving that generation the benefit of the 
fathers' wrong, and their own, He laid upon it the woes of 
toth : — " Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. That 
upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the 
earth from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of 
Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the 
temple and the altar." " Verily, I say unto you all these 
things shall come upoji this generation.'" Such is Dr. Rice's 
golden rule, and such its contrast with the teachings of 
Christ. 

I now speak directly and distinctly to the question : — 
What ivas this ancient Hebrew hond-scrvice upoji which, as 
precedent^ the justification of modern slavery is built. The 
discussion which we now enter upon may seem dry to some, 
but this subject, at least, is not dry in itself; and I earnestly 
commend it to your consciences for a patient hearing, as in 
the sight of God. 

The ground which they take respecting the Old Testa- 
ment bond service is succinctly this : 

1. " That God did expressly give permission to his people 
under the Old Dispensation to hold slaves." 

2. " That he could not have done this if slave-holding had 
been sinful in itself." 

3. " That therefore, American slave-holding is not in it- 
self sinful, and those who would treat it as sinful by setting 
church discipline against it are in error." 

Now it would seem obvious, at a glance, that this reason- 
ing carries some fatal defect in it. God gave the Israelites 
*' express permission" to borrow jewels from the Egyptians, 
expecting not to return them. Therefore, according to my 
brother's argument, it cannot be sinful in itself to borrow 
without intending to return. 

So God gave permission to buy free laborers in Judea who 
had become poor : '' If thy brother be waxen poor and be 
sold unto thee." Levit. xxv, 39. Therefore, according 
to my friend's reasoning, the Bible sanctions the buying rv^ 
iree laborers who have waxen poor in phio at this day. 



356 DISCUSSION 

- «»-- i 

How can he manifest such horror at taking a free man and 
reducing him to slavery ; (which he seems almost to make a 
merit of condemning ;) when if his doctrine be true that Jew- 
ish bond-servants were slaves, then God permitted this very 
thing — to reduce a freeman who had waxed poor to slavery ? 

But I object formally to the sum total of the ground which 
they take. 

I object to their main proposition: " That God did ex- 
fressly give ^permission to his 'people under the Old Dispen- 
sation to hold slaves ;" That it is equivocal ; and that it is not 
true. I object to their second proposition to wit: "That 
slave-holdinof cannot be sinful in itself because God once 
permitted it ;" as false, so far as derived from the first ; and 
also as not true in the absolute sense in which they use it. 
And I object to their practical inference in favor of Ameri- 
can slavery, as drawn from two errors, and like its parents, 
itself erroneous. And I further object to their whole posi- 
tion as essentially pro-slavery — and as meaning nothing 
imless it means to vindicate oppression from the Word of 
God. 

I have objected to their main proposition ; " That God 
permitted slavery, as equivocal. It may mean that God per- 
mitted slavery with approbation ; or that He permitted it as 
He does murder, merely in the sense of not hindering it. 
Why not say, "justify" if he means it; and certainly you 
justify, in court, the man whom you pronounce " not guil- 
ty." If he proves slave-holding to be not sinful in itself; 
does he not justify it 1 Why then say "permit?" Why 
not say at once, " God did expressly justify slavery under the 
Old Dispensation V O, but that would not please the North, 
Well, then : why not say that God ^'■permitted slavery'''' mere- 
ly in the sense of " not hindering," as he does other crimes ; 
and this permission can give no possible sanction to Kentucky 
slavery ? That, again, would not please the South. So the 
equivocal word " permit'''' is chosen, if not to please both 
North and South, at least, to displease neither. 
• The northern man takes up this Debate and reads from 



ON SLAVERY. 357 

Dr. Rice, " that God expressly permitted slavery ;'''' and he 
understands it to mean, some such permission as he gave to 
recorded evils — that is, in the sense of not hindering a quali- 
fied slavery for temporary purposes; while the southern 
man will think that the same words mean, that the Bible 
justifies slavery, out and out. I deeply disapprove of an 
equivocal expression, selected to hit the whole United 
States' population right between wind and water — a word 
which lies midway between right and wrong — a phrase 
lodged in the vacuum of betweenity, on no side of nothing, 
i; I have heard that there is a little prairie animal, of the 
gopher species, which has a northern and a southern end to 
his hole, so that in sultry and hot weather, when it is desira- 
ble to "raise the wind," if it blows north, he opens the south 
end of his burrow; and when south, the north end; and, be- 
sides the advantage of shifting his position to suit the wind, 
such an arrangement, in case of pursuit, is marvelously con- 
venient for the purpose of dodging responsibility. [A laugh.] 

My friend's position seems to me to have a northern and 
southern end, so that the occupant can have the advantage 
of standing in either, as it suits the exigencies of his case. 
With his southern brethren, " God permitted slave-holding," 
is to mean, that he permitted it as a worthy practice of wor- 
thy men ; but at the north end, only that God permitted 
slave-holding, as he directed wars of extermination against 
the Canaanites, or some like event, which ended long ago, 
with its divine license. 

I object, therefore, to this half-and-half phrase — " God 
'permitted slavery''^ — that it is equivocal. When a southern 
man, like J, C Postell, says, that the Bible justifies slavery, 
I understand him. Every body understands him. When. 
an abolitionist says, that God condemns slave-holding, he is 
equally explicit. But when a man, somewhere between 
North and South, says, that " God permitted slavery]^ he 
may mean, that He 'permitted it as an evil ; or he may 
mean, that He permitted it approvingly^ as what was Jit to 
he done. 



1 

358 DISCUSSION 

Professor J. H. Thornwell, with his ^^ Slaveri/no-eviP^ m 
doctrine, swallows this proposition of Dr. Rice, and finds it 
excellently palatable, that " God expressly permitted his peo- 
ple to hold slaves ;'' while the good pious northern lady who 
reads it, may wipe her spectacles and think — " Oh, well, 
God has permitted strange things, in old times ; Dr. Rice 
does not go so far out of the way, after all." 

That you may see what tone of sentiment, and what sort 
of principles prevail at the extreme South, and which meet 
and harmonize with northern opinion, in the sentiments of 
Dr. Rice, I will read from a southern religious paper, " The 
Alabama Baptist,'''' the editor of ^vhich, replying to a Ver- 
mont paper, says : — 

*' The editor of the Vermont Observer honors us with the 
sentiment, that ' we are in a fair way to become as rabid in 
support of slavery as the Index of Georgia.' We are 
much obliged to him for placing us in such good company. 
We came into this station with the determination that no 
one should surpass us in the ardor of our devotion to, and 
the boldness of our defence of southern institutions^ and we 
think we have fulfilled that determination. He says that we 
endorse the sentiment of George McDuffie — ' slavery is the 
best possible relation between the employer and the laborer^ 
and '•ice repudiate that old-fashioned doctrine ^ that all men 
are born cquaV Tins is exactly our position : and we 
will state also that our motto is, Death to abolitionism, and 
confusion to the enemies of the South." 

This main proposition of Dr. Rice will be palatable to 
that man, while at the same time the good old mother, in his 
church here, will not dream that her beloved pastor is de- 
fending slavery. 

But I further object to their equivocal main position, that 
*' God expressly permitted his people to hold slaves under the 
Old Dispensation^'' that it is not true. 

I am fully aware that we are now in the Thermopylae of 
this discussion, and that the liberties not of Greece, but of 
mankind are bound up, not (I am thankful) in the ability 



ON SLAVERY. 359 

with which it is conducted, but in the principles of which it 
takes hold. 

There are two chief sources of argument appealed to by 
Dr. Rice in support of his main position that God did ex- 
frcssly jpermit slavery to the Jews. The first is the authority 
of Divines and Commentators. The second is scripture itself. 
As to the first, he has asked, repeatedly, during this debate, 
as if he thought it conclusive of the whole subject, " Why 
have learned and godly men thought that God permitted 
slavery in the Old Dispensation if it be not true 1 Meaning, 
it would seem, that it must be true if good and wise men 
think so. Whereas the whole difficulty is solved by simply 
supposing that his good and wise men are in a mistake. 
There are several reasons w^hy those wise and godly men 
have thought so. One is that Dr. Paley's definition of slavery 
has been adopted, even by anti-slavery men, instead of a true 
definition — and hundreds of speculative minds have been 
misled by his definition instead of looking at the thing as it 
actually exists. Paley defines slavery to be merely, " an 
obligation to labor icithout contract or consent.^^ That zs, 
mere compulsory labor. And such labor is found in the Bi- 
ble, and in every family, and prison, and press-gang, and 
poor-house. But children, and paupers, and prisoners, 
though compelled to labor are not slaves ; for they have 
rights. Slaves have none. But actual, veritable slavery; 
viz: " men made property:" — bereft of self-ownership, mar- 
riage, property, liberty, for no crime ; this is not in the Bible, 
This ownership of the blood and bones of human beings is 
not there. 

2. Another reason why some classes of commentators have 
thought that slavery was in the Bible, is, that their opinions 
and feelings on the subject were influenced by the slave-hold- 
ing spirit of the age. They have seen the Bible through 
slave-holding spectacles ; and have interpreted Hebrew words 
by European and American practices. Successful commen- 
tators prove by their very success that they are more or less 
Ihe exponents of the sentiments of the age in which they 



360 DISCUSSION 

wrote. If no body believed them, no body would buy them. 
And though able commentators may have moulded the pub- 
lic mmd to their own or a few points, no mere human being 
can revolutionize the sentiments of his age throughout. I 
did not say that the German commentators were stupid men, 
but I said, that the ideas of some of them were baked stiff in 
the oven of German hermeneutics. And there is a race of 
literary drudges, who write in their books what they find in 
others. And one great source of error, with minds of a high- 
er sort, on the subject of slavery, is, that they have interpreted 
Hebrew words by European and American practices. Take 
Matthew Henry for an instance of this. He was the pastor 
of a taxed, tolerated, and licenced church ; and wrote his 
commentaries at a small town not twenty miles from Liver- 
pool, while a hundred ships, engaged in the slave-trade, sailed 
from that single port. 

Liverpool itself was built by the profits of this traffic : in allu- 
sion to which , Brooke, the comedian, when he appeared in 
their theatre, and, for some reason or other, was hissed ; in the 
indignation of the moment, told them that "every brick of their 
town was laid in human blood." Matthew Henry wrote his 
commentaries near this town, in an age and country where 
the slave-trade was not deemed inconsistent with a Christian 
profession. But neither he, nor any other Bible commenta- 
tor has taken up the subject of slavery as a topic for distinct 
and thorough investigation; but they have incorporated into 
their works the ideas current among good men at the time 
they wrote. It is no reproach that they have done so. 

To understand thoroughly all the topics which come within 
his range, a commentator must have a mind infinite, like 
God's : for his profession calls him to write about all that is 
in the Bible, and hence, to treat of all the principles which 
belong both to time and eternity. If Henry's subject had 
been slavery, and he had written against it as John Wesley 
did, his book would have sold no farther than he could cre- 
ate a party to buy it. 
•^ T^e man wlio ii^^dertakcs to settle great moral questions 



ON SLAVERY. 361 

by scraps from Biblical commentators and definitions of lex- 
icographers, acts on precisely the same principles of investi- 
gation with the man wlio should undertake to master the 
Constitution of the United States, by looking out the meanino- 
of every word in that instrument in Perry's Dictionary, in- 
stead of explaining the document by its own great principles, 
and the history of its times, and the known facts which bear 
upon the case to be examined. 

Yet there are not wanting authorities for the contrary 
interpretation of the scripture passages, in question, from 
that given by my friend. Whether there are more for his 
view, than against it, is more than I can tell. Authorities 
upon the subject may be divided into two classes. First, 
timid, and book-bound minds, such as commentators and 
lexicographers are apt to be, who depend largely for what 
they "write, upon what others have written. These can gen- 
erally be quoted in favor of slavery. Bartholomew Las 
Casas, a pious Roman Catholic, who, I have no doubt — but 
no matter whether he has gone to Heaven or not — [a laugh] 
(not that I wish to doubt he is there, only that is nothing to 
the point,) — his heart was so grieved to see the poor Indians 
toiling and perishing in the Peruvian mines, that, observing 
the patient, much-enduring habits of the negro, he is said 
to have Avritten an argument to show that it was the will of 
God, that Africans should be enslaved, as the cursed progeny 
of Ham. Other commentators have taken up their opinions 
after him, or some vindicator of the slave trade, like the 
story of the Welshman and the bridge; so that you may go 
through a dozen of these " authorities^^ and you will, per- 
haps, read in all of them, but the opinions of one man from 
■whom they have all copied, taking his opinions upon trust, 
and putting them into their books, to be in turn quoted as 
authority by others, verbatim et literatim. Break the hold 
of one of these authorities upon my brother's text, and they 
all fall into the river with him. But there is another class of 
authorities, viz : men marked for originality and independence, 
thought and investigation. These writers are generally 



362 DISCUSSION 

clear on the subject of human rights. Grotius, a name that 
all respect, as a scholar, a lawyer, and a divme, concerning 
whom, his biographer has said, that he was " master of all 
that is worth knowing in sacred or profane literature," — a 
man whom lawyers quote as a jurisconsult of the highest 
authority, and whose work, "De veritate Chris. Relig.," is 
still commonly referred to by Divines. Grotius says, " Homi- 
Tium fiires^ qui servos vel liberos abducunt, retinent, 
vendunt vcl emunt.'" That is, " Thei/ are men-stealers, who 
bring off slaves or free men; who retain, buy or sell themP 
So, according to this high authority, every man who buys, 
sells, or retains a slave, is a man thief And the General 
Assembly of the Presbyterian church, for the space of 
twenty-two years, from 1794 to 1816, used an edition of 
their Confession of Faith, which contained this opinion of 
Grotius^ in a note, explaining the meaning of the word 
^^meii stealers^'' used by the apostle Paul, in I. Timothy i, 10. 

John Wesley, whom our Methodist brethren delight to 
honor, a clear-thinking, independent and apostolic man, says, 
'' / strike at the root of this complicated villany. I utterly 
deny all slave-holding to be cojisistent with any degree of 
natural justiceP 

In a letter written by John Wesley to Mr. Wilberforce, 
dated February 24 th, 1791 ; supposed to be the last, or one 
of the last, he ever wrote ; he declares his opinion ; unless 
God had raised him (Wilberforce) up for the very purpose of 
destroying slavery, he would be worn down by the opposi- 
tion of men and devils ; and he exhorts him to go on in his 
work until even " American slavery^ the vilest that ever 
SAW THE SUN " sliall be no more. 

I will now quote some authorities from Presbyterians, the 
first of whom stands as high with his denomination as John 
Wesley does with Methodists. 

President Edwards is a man who will be admitted to 
stand second to no other on questions of morals. His fath- 
er was the first American whom European divines would 
acknowledge to be a theolog^ian. They seemed scarcely to 



ON SLAVERY. 363 

suppose there was such a thing as theology in America until 
he wrote his treatise on the Will, the Affections, etc. Presi- 
dent Edwards, the younger, in a sermon preached in New 
Haven, Ct., in 1791, before a society of which Dr. Stiles, 
(then President of Yale College,) was president; — says " It 
is as really wicked to rob a man of his liberty^ as to rob him 
of his lifc^ and much more wicked than to rob him of his 'pro'p- 
crty?'' "He who holds a slave, continues to deprive him of 
that liberty which was taken from him on the coast of Afri- 
ca, and if it was wrong to deprive him of it in the first in- 
stance, why not in the second?" (This is putting slave-hold- 
ing on a level with man-steaUng. We now go on with the quo- 
tation.) 

" The co7isequence is inevitable^ that other things being the 
same, to hold a negro slave unless he have forfeited his liberty, 
is a greater sin in the sight of God than concubinage or for- 
nication.''^ And again, " if we may judge of the future from 
the past, within fifty years from this time, it will be as dis- 
graceful for a man to hold a negro slave, as to be guilty of 
common robbery or theft .'" 

This was in 1791 . Fifty-four years ago, and the prophe- 
cy was as true as the logic of the discourse was sound. And 
the day is at the door when it will be literally verified. 

I will quote another authority. The " Philadclphian,^^ 
(newspaper) of June 23, 1834. The Editor (Mr. Engles ?) 
who was clerk to the General Assembly, (Old School,) says 
in answer to the man who propounded certain questions to 
liis paper ; — 

" He ivho steals a man and makes him a slave.) is o?ie of the 
WORST THIEVES, and oppressors. He who purchases a man 
thus enslaved is as great a criminal as the man-stealer ' 

So far the stated clerk of Dr. Rice's General Assembly. 
Let us next hear the Rev. Dr. Breckenridge, President of 
AVashington College, Pennsylvania ; who also belongs to 
the same church as my brother. He is a Kentuckian, and 
Kentuckians are not in the habit of stopping half way. He 
says; '■^ Out upon such folly ! The moAi ivho cannot sec that 



164 . -■^'^' DISCUSSION 



involuntary domestic slavery, as it exists among us, is founded 
upon the 2)rincijjle of talcing by force that ivhich is anothers. 



HAS SIMPLY NO MORAL SENSE." 



Gentlemen, and fellow-citizens : I know that reading is 
tiresome to an audience, and I shall spare you. Statesmen, 
jurists, divines, and eminent men of every class, of the Pres- 
byterian, and other churches, might be adduced, and their 
sentiments quoted, to fill the time allotted to this debate. I 
have already quoted the learned and humane Clarkson, who 
holds that, " if Christianity is not a lie," slave-holding must 
be a "sin of the deepest dye." I might quote the celebrated 
law professor, Miller, of Glasgow, who lays it down, that 
"it is impossible for a man to sell himself into slavery, 
seeing such a bargain is without consideration." If I give a 
man five hundred dollars for himself, I can, the next minute, 
take it away from him, because, when the bargain is con- 
cluded, the man reverts to me, and I own him, and all that 
he owns, the 500 dollars that I paid for him included. So 
that he has got nothing for himself It is therefore utterly 
impossible for such a contract to be binding, because it is 
essential to a contract that there be some consideration. 

Montesquieu, author of " The Spirit of Laivs^^ adds his 
testimony to the same effect. 

Patrick Henry said, " We owe it to the purity of our 
holy religion to show that its precepts are opposed to slavery." 

The testimony of such men as Patrick Henry is not to be 
thrown away, because they did not practice their doctrines. 
Washington regarded slavery as an evil, which ought to be 
abolished, and declared himself ready to vote for its aboli- 
tion. Jefferson spoke of the abolition of slavery, as an event 
w^hich he ardently desired ; but said, (he was then an old man,) 
/hat it would require some young Eneas to bear the burden 
of this reform, instead of the trembling shoulders of the old 
Anchises. He must devolve the burden upon younger 
?boulders. These were professed statesmen, and felt no in- 
consistency in holding slaves themselves, while willing to 
c/y^epp^a^e with their fellow-citizens for the destruction of the 



ON SLAVERY. 365 

system. Had they been moralists, or ministers of Christ, 
their practice might aflect the value of their testimony. 

I have now done with authorUies. If the gentleman 
reads any more, I advise you to consider, well, who is the 
author of the book from which he reads, and to what class 
of writers he belongs, that you may know what considera- 
tion his opinion deserves. 

I now come to the last argument, which, if I had placed 
them in the order of their importance, would have been 
first. With God's help, I mean not to leave one stone upon 
another of his argument from scripture which shall not be 
thrown down. I have once read the texts upon which he 
founds his doctrine, and it is not necessary to re-read them. 
I attempted to show, first, that, even though the Hebrew 
bond-servants had been slaves, that would not answer the 
purpose of justifying Kentucky slavery, any more than 
would the fact that the Israelites were permitted to borrow 
jewels from the Egyptians without returning them, justify 
modern swindling or stealing. I will now state my reasons 
for my belief, that the Hebrew bond- servants were not slaves. 

It is plain that they were not slaves from the fact that they 
were not hereditary or perpetual bondsmen. Slaves are men 
held in hereditary and perpetual bondage: they are ^^ proper- 
tij to all intents and purposes forever. That is slavery. 
Slaves are property., as cattle are property, and the progeny 
of cattle are perpetually the property of him who owns the 
dam. '■'■Partus sequiiur ventreinP I will refer you to a 
pamphlet by Dr. J. L. Wilson, the venerable pastor of the 
First Presbyterian church in this city, and a man who, 
when right, is very hard to get wrong, and when wrong — 
I will not say whether he is hard to get right or not. [A 
laugh.] 

Dr. Wilson^ in his pamphlet on the '■'-Relation of Master 
and Servant J^ declares in his own decided manner, that "he 
must be a blind guide," who supposes that the Hebrew ser- 
vants, obtained from foreign tribes, were held in perpetual 
bondage — and that the jubilee of the 50th year did not ap- 



366 DISCUSSION 

ply to them. And the same doctrine, that the jubilee freed 
all the Hebrew servants, the ear-bored bondmen and all, has 
been laid down by one of the Bench of Bishops, speaking 
in the English House of Lords, and nowhere, so far as I 
know, successfully contradicted. And because they were 
not perpetual and hereditary bondmen, they were certainly 
not slaves. 

Again: It is plain that they were not slaves, because the law 
of reluming irroperty did not apply to them. "If thou see thine 
enemy's ox or his ass go astray, thou shalt surely fetch him 
back to him," but, if a slave were to run into their nation 
from the tribes outside of Judea, they were to permit him to 
dwell wqth them. This law shows that slaves were not con- 
sidered the propety of their masters. And Dr. Rice says, 
by his practice, amen to this law. For, says he, " 1 have 
SEEN SLAVES RUNNING AWAY froTii their master s^ and I ivould 
not interfere to send them back. But why, if the slave is the 
just property of the master,, he must send him back wdien 
he sees him running off, or else he is neither an honest 
Christian, or Christian minister. But whatever be true of 
Dr. Rice, this law, given of God to the Jews, shows that 
these servants were not slaves in God's account. See Deut. 
xxiii, 15. " Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the ser- 
vant that is escaped," etc. 

Another important fact, showing that the HcbrcAV bond- 
men were not slaves, is the one already once referred to ; 
that the forty-seven learned and pious translators of the Bi- 
ble, in 1607, (the year that Jamestowm, Va.. Avas settled.) at 
a time when our forefathers were driven by religious perse- 
cution, to seek an asylum for liberty in the wilderness of 
America, a time of great religious agitation throughout 
Christendom, and when the Bible was eagerly and very 
generally studied, never once called the Hebrew bond-ser- 
vants, slaves. 

Forty-seven of the ablest men, and the best Hebrew and 
Greek scholars that could be found in that age, were set to 
translate the Bible into English. They met together, divi- 



ON SLAVERY. 367 

ded the original Hebrew and Greek text into parts, each tak- 
ino- his portion ; and when they met again, each read his 
part, Avhile the rest criticised his translation. There never 
was such a translation made of a book. It may be said of it, 
that, like God's works, "it is good," for I believe that He 
aided by his spirit the men who made it. It will stand as- 
long as the pillars of the earth stand. Now, what I wish to 
fasten on your memories is, the fact that they never once 
translate the Hebrew word ^^ehcdh^' a slave ! — never once 
in the whole book. Yet, Dr. Rice says, " it is the very word 
for slave," and that there is another word (" s^wX'ir,") which 
is the word for hired servant. Nor did they translate the 
Greek word (doulos) " slave^'ixi the whole of the New Tes- 
tament. 

Dr. Rice against our Bible translation ! [Time expired. 



[MR. rice's thirteenth SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen Moderators^ and Felloiv-Citizens : 

I am truly gratified to perceive that my friend, by having 
had time allowed him to recruit his bodily powers, has 
likewise, gained time to recruit his ideas, and has come 
here with a lorittcn reply to my argu7nc7iis, (either prepared 
by himself or supplied by some other hand,) carefully drawn 
out. I will attend to its leading points before I enter on the 
Bible argument from the New Testament. 

He first replies to my argument showing that the relation 
between master and slave is not in itself sinful, because it is 
often formed at the earnest request of the slave, and so as re- 
ally to improve his condition. His answer is — if a man buy 
a slave for the purpose of liberating him, he does not sin ; 
but if this be not the object, he does sin. He, then, admits, 
that the legal relation may be formed, and may exist for the 
time being, and yet not be sinful. But his assertion that if 
it be not the object of the purchaser to liberate the man, he 
sins, labors under this very important difficulty, viz: it is 



368 . DISCUSSION- 

ivithoni proof, unless his mere assertion be regarded as proof, 
as it might be, if the Rev. Mr. Blanchard were Pope! 

But he says, the purchaser holds the slave in a condition 
in which he is liable to be sold into merciless hands. And I 
ask, whether a man's own children, should he die, may 
not suffer a like misfortune by being- put under the care of 
wicked men ? If I buy a slave at his own request, thereby 
improving his condition, I am not responsible for any mis- 
fortune which may afterwards befall him, and which I could 
not prevent. When I have purchased such a slave, I have 
certainly, at least for the present, improved his condition, so 
far as other paramount duties will permit; and it will require 
something more than the gentleman's assertion to prove, that 
in so doing I am. guilty of sin. If, in such a case, I have 
committed sin, it is in taking a fellow-man out of bad hands, 
or in preventing him from falling into such. This, if I have 
sinned, is my crime ! 

In . regard to the duty of the Presbyterian elder and the 
Boston man to whom fell a large number of slaves of dif- 
ferent ages and conditions, he says, they ought by all means 
to have manumitted them. What, then, I ask, as I have be- 
fore asked, would become of the aged who could not support 
themselves by labor, and of the women and children in a 
similar condition ? 

But if they could not free them legally, they were bound, 
he says, to have called them in, and told them, they were 
free, and paid them wages. He did not tell us, however, what 
amount of wages would be due to that company of them who, 
as the elder said, were eating him up. Besides, all this is 
mere assertion^ wholly unreasonable. Suppose a master in 
one of the slave States should call in his servants, and tell 
them they are free; would this make them free ? It would 
not ; for the laws of the State say, they shall not be liberated 
in the State, or at any rate, not until bond and security are 
given for their future support. They would be liable, there- 
fore, immediately to be taken up, and sold, and might be sold 
into cruel hands. As to wages, that matter must depend up- 



ON SLAVERY. 369 

on circumstances. It is clear, that in the cases referred to, 
and in all similar cases, masters are doing- their duty, when 
they live with their slaves, and do what they can for their 
present and future happiness. 

In reply to his assertion, that slave-holding- is but kidnap- 
ping " stretched out,'* I remarked, that such a principle, if ad- 
mitted, would require all those farmers who own lands taken 
from the Indians by fraud or force, to restore them to their 
original owners. But he says, the original owners cannot be 
found. This, however, is not precisely true ; for a number 
of the Indian tribes from whom land has been taken unjust- 
ly, can he found — especially tiie Cherokees in the South, 
concerning whose wrongs so much excitement prevailed a 
',^tw years ago. 

Will the gentleman, then, set out on a crusade in behalf 
of Indian rights, with the same zeal he manifests in the 
cause of abolition, and urge the owners of their lands to 
turn themselves out of house and home, because they have 
got only a " kidnapper's and robber's title" to their land? 
Will he carry oul his own principle ? It would be a curi- 
ous spectacle: I do not think he would be quite as popular 
with the abolitionist farmers, as he is at present. 

There is a distinction between the sins of a nation, and 
the sins of individuals in that nation. Individuals cannot 
help the sins which the nation, of which they form a com- 
ponent part, has committed ; and how great soever they may be, 
every individual citizen is not to be held responsible for them. 

He says, that if Hagar was Abraham's property, and, 
when running away from her mistress, was advised by an 
angel to return, I am bound to follow the angel's example, 
and turn back all runaways. I reply, that, when they are 
running from masters like Abraham, I would give them the 
same advice the angel gave to Hagar. I would tell them, 
what I sincerely believe, that their condition Avas not likely 
to be bettered by their flight to Canada. But even if it 
were, all who so run off make the condition of their breth- 
ren, remaining in slavery, so much the harder ; and, there- 
24 



370 DISCUSSION 

fore, a regard for those in bondage with them, should pre- 
vent them from taking this course. 

The brother tells you, that when Constantino enacted the 
laws I read, against separating married slaves from each 
other, he was engaged in " killing slavery " throughout the 
Roman empire. I ask where is his proof of this? At all 
events, slavery did not die in the empire for centuries after ; 
no, not till the thirteenth century, as the gentleman himself 
admits. This was, to say the least, a Very slow death. 

He says, again, that the law of the Presbyterian church, 
forbidding the separation of husband and wife in the sale 
of slaves, is a dead letter, and totally inoperative. He as- 
serts this ; I deny it. He has told us of the Danville case ; 
but in that case the law was fully operative, for the church 
session did discipline the member so offending. 

He proves slavery to be sinful by the fact, that the Ken- 
tuckian holds his slaves by a law that does not recognize their 
marriage as valid. Very well : the Hindoo holds his wife 
under a law which does not recognize Avomen as having 
souls, and which treats them as incapable of religion. Is 
marriage, therefore, among the Hindoos, in itself a sin? 
The Roman law gave a father the right of life and death 
over his child: was it sin, therefore, in a Roman to have a 
son ? The argument is just as logical in the one case as in 
the othar. 

I pressed him with the inconsistency of his abolitionist friends 
in insisting with such uncompromising zeal on setting the 
slave free from his master, and then stopping short and re- 
fusing him the boon of a freeman in the right of suffrage ; 
and how does he reply? Oh, he leaves all that to the poli- 
ticians! he has nothing to do with that. Nothing to do 
with it? As an abolitionist, pleading for human freedom, 
he has much to do with it. Does he call him a free man 
for whom others make laws at their pleasure, he having no 
voice in the enactment of the laws or in the choice of the law- 
makers? Yet where is the abolitionist press in Ohio that 
pleads for this vital element of freedom in the case of the 



ON SLAVERY. 



371 



colored man? If he must be set free, why not make him 
free indeed? Ah, that would not do: and so that is none 
of their concern— they leave that to the politicians ! 

The gentleman has at last made one attempt to answer 
my argument based on the truth, that the great princi- 
ples of the moral code are obvious, and commend themselves 
at once to the conscience of every enlightened man ; con- 
nected with the fact, that men the most enlightened have 
failed to see or feel that slave-holding is in itself sinful. 
And what is his answer? Why, he says, all do see it to be 
wrong, when brought home to themselves ; for, if a man 
should seize on one of my daughters, and make a slave of 
her I would instantly feel that the act was a heinous sin. 
And does the brother really regard this as an answer? He 
offers it as an answer to my argument. But are we discuss- 
ing the question, whether seizing on a free human being and 
reducing him by force to a state of slavery, is sinful ? Who 
would a°rgue such a question for one moment? I certainly 
would not Yet that is his only answer! We are not en- 
quiring whether it is sin to reduce men to slavery, but what 
a mantis bound to do with those who are in slavery already, 
and were born slaves. What has this to do with the act of 
a man who would seize on my daughter, born free, in a 
land of freedom, and by for.ce make a slave of her ? Sup- 
pose I could show that the wise and good, of all ages and 
lands, thought stealing not to be wrong ; would it be an an- 
swer 'to say, "ah, but if a man should rob you, you would 
then think it a sin ?" 

My friend has made a brief reply to my argument on the 
golden rule. He says that God has made of one blood all 
men to dwell under the face of the whole heaven ; and as they 
are of one blood, they are by nature equal, and so must be 
equal in their condition; and therefore it is a sin, under any 
circumstances, for one to hold another as a slave. Admittincr; 
the inference to be sound, it is against himself and hia 
friends, who assert that the politicians may deprive one class 
of men, on account of their color, of all political rights. 



372 DISCUSSION 

[ Mr. Blanch^vrd rose to explain. I never said that. I 
said that, as moralists, and as ministers of Christ, when we 
have freed the slaves from, their masters^ abo]itionists have 
done with them.] 

Yes, that is, when, as moralists, and ministers, and zealous 
abolitionists, they have restored to the slave one half his 
rights, they have done with him, and very coolly leave the 
rest to politicians ! They do not even aim to secure, or pre- 
tend to claim, for him, all his rights. The gentleman is pru- 
dent. He saw the trouble into which his doctrine would 
plunge him, if he took another step, and he stops short. Oh, 
prudent abolitionists! Then complete freedom, it seems, 
belongs to privileged classes only. He admits that politi- 
cians may deprive the slave of some of the dearest of his 
rights all his life long, and yet their task as advocates of 
human liberty, will have been fully accomplished. "Aboli- 
tionists have done with them." If he were the African, would 
he be satisfied with such principles? 

Again, he says, my argument from the golden rulc^ is a 
ipetitio principii — a begging of the question — that it assumes 
that there is nothinof wTonof in holdino- a man in slavery. 
It assumes no such thing. If I purchase a slave at his 
own earnest request, that his condition may be improved, 
I do not thereby say, that he, or his ancestors were justly 
enslaved. But I do den}-, that I have violated that rule, 
when I comply with his request, and so place him in a bet- 
ter condition ; or that I am bound to make him a present 
of four or six hundred dollars. If I purchase him at his 
own request, I confer on him a favor ; he so regards it. I 
may not be able, without disregarding other paramout duties, 
to set him free ; but I do for him the best that, under the 
circumstances, I am able. Is it begging the question to say, 
that in so doing, I commit no sin? 

But the brother says, my argument gives me the benefit 
of my own wrong. I deny it. I have done the man, whom 
I purchase, no wrong. Admitting that, in some cases, a 
man may be responsible for the wTong done by his father, — 



ON SLAVERY. 373 

my father has done this man no wrong". The oricj-inal wrono- 
was committed long ago. What can we now do to remedy 
all the evils of generations gone by % They who enslaved 
our blacks, had gone to their account, long before we were 
born. We find them in slavery; what ought we to do for 
them % That is the question, and the only question. 

The brother applies to slave-holders the language of our 
Lord to the Jews, where He told them that their fathers 
killed the prophets, and they garnished their sepulchres. But 
the cases are not analogous. They would be if we were an- 
swering those who stole and enslaved the blacks, or if we our- 
selves were to steal and enslave others. The Jews said, if they 
had lived in the days of their fathers, they would not have 
slain the prophets ; while they themselves persecuted and put 
to death Christ and his apostles. Thus, they did indeed 
fill up the measure of their fathers. But what analogy is 
there between this case, and that of a man who buys a slave 
at his own earnest request? Did a prophet ever come to a 
Jew, and say, — " pi'ay, do persecute me a little ? " [A laugh.] 
I do not claim the right of going to Africa and purchasing 
slaves on speculation. The case the brother has brought, is 
as far from ours as the poles. 

And now for his replies to my argument from the Old 
Testament. 

He says my argument is bad, because the position I take 
is equivocal : at the North it is understood, that slavery is 
not wrong because God 'permitted^ that, is, did not hinder it 
among the Jews ; while at the South, it goes the whole length 
of maintaining that God sanctioned slavery among them. 
Is this a candid statement ? Have I ever said that God per- 
mitted slave-buying to the Jews, in the sense of not hinder- 
ing it, as he did not hinder polygamy ? Never. The brother 
knows, and you know better. My position was, and is, that 
God expressly permitted it in the words of the Jewish law, 
given from himself by Moses. No man, in his senses, c-ould 
understand the argument as meaning simply that God did 
not hinder the Jews from buying and holding slaves. No, 



374 DISCUSSION 

my position is not equivocal ; it is plain, open, and atove 
board. It means at the North what it means at the South : 
it means at the South just what it means at the North, and 
no more, viz : that God gave the Jews permission to buy 
and hold slaves, because, as I suppose, their condition would 
be thereby improved. 

As to the brother's quotation from the Alabama Baptist, 
I have only to say, I have nothing to do with it. I never 
have said that slavery is no evil ; nor is that my belief. But 
on this subject the gentleman flatly contradicted himself, by 
saying, at one time, that my doctrine was highly agreeable 
to southern slave-holders, and at another, that they could not 
endure it. He changes his position more frequently than 
the wind changes its course. 

In reply to my argument from authority, he says that 
the able scholars and critics to whom I referred, were mis- 
led by Dr. Paley. Now it happens, somewhat unfortu- 
nately for this reply, that they lived, (at least many of them,) 
before Paley. [A laugh.] And besides. Dr. Paley him- 
self, though a pleasant and ingenious writer, never was re- 
garded as a giant on questions of morals. There is no evi- 
dence that the eminent and able men, with whom I agree, 
and from whom Mr. Blanchard differs, in their exposition of 
the passages I quoted from the Old Testament, were misled, 
or in the least influenced by Dr. Paley. 

But he says, that they looked at slavery through " slave- 
holding spectacles." Well, and where is the evidence of 
this? Why, Matthew Henry wrote his Commentary not 
more than 30 miles from Liverpool, where slave-ships were 
fitted out for the African trade ; and he was afraid to speak 
out his real sentiments on the subject ! The gentleman pays 
quite a compliment to that eminently good and wise man ! 
But there may have been much sin beside slave-dealing 
committed in less than thirty miles of him. Was he afraid to 
expose this ? But he has told us what persecution he en- 
dured in consequence of his fidelity to the truth. How faith- 



ON SLAVERY. 375 

ful he was ! How much more fearless than poor Matthew 
Henry! [A laugh.] 

I But he has a general reply, which sets aside forever the 
authority of critics and commentators. He says, they are 
generally men of timid minds. And, pray, what causes 
exist to make them more timid than others ? It is the busi- 
siness of lexicographers and commentators not to engage in 
any exciting controversies, but to define words, and expound 
the Word of God. Moreover, their reputation depends upon 
their accuracy and ability in their work. What, then, 
should cause them, more than others, to depart from known 
truth ! The reply is simply nonsensical. The gentleman 
feels the difficulty in which he and his cause are involved, 
from the fact that all learned men, commentators, critics, and 
lexicographers give to the language of the Bible, on the 
subject before us, an interpretation widely diiTerent from his ; 
and he would fain destroy their influence by simply saying — 
"O, they are timid-minded men — they do'nt know every 
thing — they are mere babes — can't go to bed without a com- 
mittee ! " Such an attempt cannot succeed with intelligent 
men. 

j He quoted the opinion of "the clearheaded" Grotius, 
concerning slavery. Now will he flease inform us whether 
Grotius gave to the scri'ptures I have quoted an inter'pretcL' 
iion different from that which 1 have given? 
i The opinion of John Wesley has also been quoted. Did 
Wesley speak of the injustice of slavery as a system^ or of 
the sin of individuals involved in the evil ? Did he de- 
nounce arid excommunicate men, simply because they were 
slave-holders? If he did, why have not his followers done 
the same? Does the Methodist Church in these United 
States make slave-holding a bar to Christian fellowship ? It. 
does not; 

I Dr. Engles has also been quoted. Now I happen to 
know something of the views of that gentleman on the sub- 
ject of slavery; and I know, that, though opposed to slavery, 
he is no less opposed to abolitionism, in theory and in prac- 



376 DISCUSSION 

tice. It is by quoting isolated passages from the writings 
of men, without regard to the connection, they are made to 
utter sentiments they never held. For example, what they 
say of slavery as a system, or of traffic in slaves for gain, is 
applied to individuals involved in slave-holding. 

The gentleman has quoted Dr. R. J. Brcckenridge. He 
is indeed one of the last men whom I should have expected 
to hear quoted in favor of modern abolitionism. He is well 
known as an anti-slavery man ; but it is equally well known, 
that he engaged in a public debate of several days' continu- 
ance, with Thompson, a rampant abolitionist of Scotland, 
and it is said, that he effectually used him up. 

We have also been treated to the opinions of George 
Washington, and Patrick Henry, both of whom held just 
about as much abolitionism as your humble servant. 

Thus far has the gentleman got on, and no Bible, All he 
has done, or tried to do, is to defend himself against the Bi- 
ble. In attempting to do this, he says : 

1. The bondmen of the Jews, were not slaves, because 
their servitude was not perpetual. We are not discussing 
the question whether perpetual slave-holding is sinful — 
whether the relation of master and slave is sinful, if it con- 
tinue perpetually. If the gentleman desired to discuss this 
question ; why did he not say so? We are discussing the 
question, whether the relation of master and slave is in it- 
self sinful ; for if it is, it is sinful to have it continue one 
hour. Then, if w^e admit, that Jewish servitude was not 
perpetual, but ceased at the fiftieth year — the jubilee ; what 
does it prove in favor of my opponent ? It is certain, that they 
were bought with money ; that they were declared to be their 
master's money ; that the master claimed their services, and 
might enforce obedience by severe chastisement. It is cer- 
tain that those purchased immediately after the jubilee, might 
be held in bondage forty-nine years^ and that to a large por- 
tion of them, bondage would be perpetual ; for they would 
not live till the year of release. And to many who would 
live to see the time, their freedom would be a poor boon ; 



ON SLAVERY. 877 

for their advanced age and infirmities would disqualify them 
for the enjoyment of it. But the duration of the servitude, 
does not affect the principle. If I may hold a man in servi- 
tude forty-nine years, I may hold him longer, if there be no 
express law against it ? 

2. But the law concerning returning property, Mr. B. tells 
us, did not apply to the Jewish bond-servants, and, hence he 
infers that they were not slaves. I answer, that the law 
which forbade the Jews to return a slave who had escaped 
from his master, and required them to allow him to dwell 
where he pleased amongst them, related not to Jewish bond- 
men, but to the slaves of cruel heathen masters, vvho had 
escaped into the land of Judea, and who, if forced back, 
would not only be forced into pagan darkness, but might 
meet a cruel death on their return. 

The law was, .indeed, a merciful one. If I v/ere to see a 
child escaping from a cruel father, who was accustomed to 
treat him unmercifully, I would not think of forcing him 
back. But does this law prove, that the bond-servants of 
the Jews, bought with their money, liable to be chastised, if 
they disobeyed their masters, were not slaves? Surely, we 
have singular logic from the gentlem.an. 

The brother urges again his crowning argument, that if 
the Hebrew word meant slave, our English translators would 
have rendered it slave. I have asked him, in reply, what 
v/as the meaning of the English word servant in England, 
at the time our translation was made, under James I ? I 
have reminded him that servus is the Latin word for slave, 
and mancipium for a man caught and enslaved. ServoMt 
is but servus.) with an English termination. Besides did 
they not render the word by the v/ord bondman % What, 
I ask, does the word bondman mean ? Does it mean a free 
man? 

How does the gentleman understand those passages of 
scripture, where the bond and the free are placed in contrast 
with each other ? For example, God calls the foAvls of the 
heaven to come, '' That they may eat the flesh of kings, and 



378 DISCUSSION 

the flesh of captains, &c., and the flesh of all men, both free 
and bond, both small and great." Rev. ix, 12. Again, 
'' There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bo7id 
nor free, &c., Gal. iii, 26. Away with such quibbling. 
Everybody knows, that a bondman is a slave. When, there- 
fore, our translators rendered the word eved by the English 
word bondman, they employed as strong a term as the word 

slave. 

Still, the gentleman insists that evcd does not mean slave. 
I have asked him, when the Hebrews talked about a slave, 
what word they used? It is a fair question: I have put it 
to him again and again. He has not answered. I ask him 
once more, when the Jews wished to speak of slaves, did 
they use the word eved, or not? If not, will he please 
to tell us what word they did use. I hope he will give 
us some light upon this subject. I must insist upon his 
answering the question. I have paid due attention to the 
gentleman's replies, and now, according to promise, I enter 
upon the argument from the New Testament. 

And here I cannot but express my regret that the discus- 
sion of the whole of the remaining scripture evidence, is 
confined to so short a time as the remaining hours of this 
day. Late as it is, in the afternoon of the last day of the 
debate, we have heard no Bible argument from our friend. 
Mark that. 

1 . In the commencement of this argument I state it as a fact, 
admitted by the abolitionists, as well as all others conversant 
with history, that in the days of Christ and his apostles, not 
only did slavery exist every where, but the slaves were as 
numerous throughout the Roman empire, as the freemen.. 
My brother will not deny this. 

[Mr. Blanchard. I admit that they were as numerous, 
and more so.j 

Very well. In some instances from one hundred to ten 
thousand slaves were owned by a single man. 

2. And I state it as a second fact, that the piety of a man 
was never called in question by the apostles because he was 



ON SLAVERY. 379 

a slave-holder, but slave-holders were freely admitted to 
membership in the primitive church ; and though professing 
Christians were required to treat their slaves with all kind- 
ness, they never were called upon to set them free ; as they 
certainly would have been, had slave-holding been in itself 
sinfuL 

This is our ground ; and if it is true, we are forced to the 
conclusion, that either the doctrine of abolitionists is untrue, 
or the apostles of Jesus Christ did admit to the communion 
of his church, and that without reproof, or requiring them 
to quit their sin, the most heinous and scandalous offenders, 
men (according to our brother) chargeable with the greatest 
abomination of heathenism. 

The proof of this fact rests on a few passages of the New 
Testament, familiar, as I presume, to most of those who 
hear me. I will read, in the first place, from Ephesians, 
VI, 5 : 

t " Servants be obedient to them that are your masters ac- 
cording to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness 
of heart, as unto Christ. Not with eye service, as men 
pleasers ; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God 
from the heart; — with good will doing service, as to the 
Lord, and not to men :^— knowing that whatsoever good thing 
any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, 
whether he be bond or free. And ye masters, do the same 
things unto them, forbearing threatening : knowing that your 
master also is in heaven ; neither is there respect of persons 
with him." 

1 Again : Colossians, iii, 22 : 

' " Servants, obey in all things your masters according to 
the flesh ; not with eye service as, men pleasers ; but in sin- 
gleness of heart, fearing God : and whatsoever ye do, do it 
heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men ; knowing that of 
the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance : for 
ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall 
receive for the wrono- which he hath done : and there is no 
respect of persons." 



380 DISCUSSION 

I read again from 1. Timothy, vi, 1, 2 : 

*' Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their 
own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and 
his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have be- 
lieving masters, let them not despise them because they are 
brethren : but rather do them service, because they are faith- 
ful and beloved, partakers of the benefit." 

Once more: I.Peter, ii, 18; 

'* Servants be subject to your masters with all fear ; not 
only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For 
this is thank-worthy, if a man for conscience toward God 
endure grief, suffering wrongfully." 

Now the question arises, were the "masters" here re- 
ferred to, slave-holders ? The word kurios, translated mas' 
ter, signifies possessor, owner, master. When used, as here, 
in connexion with servant, it means " owner or possessor 
of servants, or slaves." In its proper sense it always im- 
plies authority, arising from an existing relation. Let me 
read you a brief quotation from an article in the Biblical 
Repository^ from the pen of Professor Stuart, pages 737, 
and 741. 

In his'remarks on the meaning of the word kurios in the 
Septuagint, he says — " 1. Kurios^ then, means, owner ^ pos- 
sessor ; e. g. Ex. xxi, 28, and xxi, 29, 34. 2. It signifies 
husband, lord, in the sense of being the head of a family ; 
e. g. Gen. xviii, 12, &c. 3. It is used as an appellation of 
respect and civility. 4. Kurios is very frequently employed 
to designate the relation of a master to his servants or slaves] 
e. g. Gen. xxiv, 9, 10, 12, 14, &lc. In this sense the word 
is employed many scores of times in the Septuagint ; as may 
be seen in Tromme's Concordance. Indeed, so far were the 
Seventy from recognizing the usual classic distinction be- 
tween despotes and kurios, as stated by Passow, that they 
have scarcely used despotes at all in the sense to which I how 
advert, &c. 5. It is employed, in numberless instances, to 
designate the only living and true God, the King of Kings 
and Lord of Lords, as the supreme raler, governor, master, 



ON SLAVERY. 381 

owner, and rightful lord and possessor of all things, having 
them all under his control," 6lc, 

Professor Stuart, one of the ablest critics and most learn- 
ed expositors in this country, or in any other, says, 

"As used in the New Testament, the word kurios 
has the following meanings: 1. It designates the own- 
er or possessor of any thing ; as Matt, xx, 8, &c. 2. It 
signifies the head or master of a family or household; 
e. g. Mark xiii, 35, &g. 3. It is used as an appellation 
of respect and civility; Matt, xviii, 21, &c. 4. It is em- 
ployed as designati?ig the relation of a master to a ser- 
vant or slave; Matt, xxiv, 45, 46, 48, 50, Eph. vi, 5, 9, Col. 
iv. 1, iii, 32, and often elsewhere." 

Abolitionists tell us, that despotes is the proper Greek word 
to sio^nify an owner of slaves, but that kurios has not com- 
monly this meaning. Professor Stuart, however, who is one 
of the ablest critics in our country, states, that the authors of 
the Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Sep- 
tuao-int, do not make any distinction between these words, 
but that they almost uniformly use the word kurios, when 
they mean the master of slaves. On page 758 he says — •' I 
proceed to note a few other instances, in which Paul used 
the word kurios in the common secular sense, as denoting 
the master of servants. Thus Rom. xiv, 4, Eph. vi, 5, and 
vi, 9, Col. iii, 22, and iv, 1, are plain instances of this na- 
ture ; and I may add, these are among the very numerous 
class of examples in the Septuagint and New Testament, 
which go to show that the classical distinction made between 
despotes and kurios was not at all regarded by the Hellenis- 
tic writers." 

It appears, then, that the Hellenistic writers— of whom 
were the apostles of Christ— did not make a distinction be- 
tween the words kurios and despotes, but that they generally 
used kurios to signify a master or owner of slaves. In the 
Septuagint translation, Potiphar is called Joseph's kurios or 
master. Will the gentleman inform us, whether Joseph 
was Potiphar' s slave ? 



382 DISCUSSION 

Ilobertson, who is a lexicographer of standard authority, 
defines kurios thus : " lord, master, owner — generally as the 
possessor, oivner, master, of property ; Matt, xx, 8, xxi, 40, 
&,c. The master or possessor of persons, servants, slaves; 
Matt. X, 24, xxiv, 45, &c." 

It is clear, then, that the word kurios, translated master, 
does commonly signify an owner of slaves. And now I 
proceed to prove, that the corresponding word, doulos, trans- 
lated servant, means a slave ; or that the persons addressed by 
the apostles as servants, were slaves. 

To satisfy the minds of the unprejudiced on this point, I 
will refer to some standard authorities ; for I pretend not to 
such learning as to expect the audience to depend upon my 
assertions. 

Robertson defines doulos — " a slave, a servant — spoken 
of involuntary service, e. g. a slave in opposition to eleuthe- 
ros, free." Douleia, he defines, slavery, bondage, Douleuo — 
to be a slave or servant, to serve. Douloo — to make a slave, 
to bring into bondage. 

Bretschneidcr, one of the most learned German lexicogra- 
phers, defines doulos — ^^ serviis, qui sui juris non est, cui op- 
ponitur ho eleutheros] 1 Cor. vii. 21 " — a slave, one who is 
not under his own control, to which is opposed ho eleuthe- 
ros, free. Douloo — to make a slave, reduce to slavery. 

Donnegan defines doulos, "a slave, a servant, as opposed 
to dcspotes — a master. Douloo, to reduce to slavery," &c. 

Groves defines doule, a female slave: doulos, a slave, a 
servant; douloo, to enslave, reduce to slavery. 

Greenfield defines doulos, a man in a servile state, male 
slave, or servant. Douloo — to reduce to servitude, enslave, 
oppress by retaining in servitude. 

Such are the definitions of doulos, and its cognate terms, 
given by lexicographers of standard authority ; men who, 
though regarded by the gentleman as weak and timid, may, 
nevei'theless, be supposed to have some considerable acquaint- 
ance with the Greek language. They all agree, that tho 



ON SLAVERY. 383 

I 

primary, proper, and ordinary meaning" of the word doulos, 
is slave. 

It is important here to remark, that the Greek language 
has a word which does definitely signify a hired servant, 
viz., misthotos — a word commonly used in this sense, both in 
the Septuagint and the New Testament ; but this word is 
never used by the apostles addressing servants. 

Having thus ascertained how the lexicographers under- 
stand the word doulos, I now invite your attention to a few 
quotations from the classics, showing that profane Greek 
writers uniformly used it to mean a slave. 

Herodotus — " Rhodope was born in Thrace. She was the 
slave {doule) of Jadmon — the fellow-slave {sundoulc) of 
^sop," b. ii, sec. 134. Again — "Our affairs have come to 
this crisis, O lonians, that we must be either //-fg (eleutheroi) 
or slaves, (douloir) b. vi, sec. 11. Again — " Argos was de- 
prived of so many men, that the slaves [douloi) usurped the 
government. The expelled slaves [douloi) seized Terinthe. 
Oleander persuaded these slaves (doulois) to attack their 7nas- 
ters, [despotais,) ib. sec. 83. 

Plalo — " As to the things connected with tame living an- 
imals, the rearing and managing of flocks embraces all ex- 
cept slaves, [doulousr) There remams, then, the class of 
slaves, (doulon,) and all other servants (hupereton.) What 
servants do you mean? Those that have been purchased 
or made property in any other way, whom we may unques- 
tionably call slaves, [doulous.) 

Harpocration, speaking of the Helots, says, " they were 
not naturally the slaves [douloi) of the Lacedemonians, but 
were the first of the inhabitants ofHelos subdued." Pausa- 
nias says, " They were the first slaves {douloi) of the La- 
cedemonians." Eiistaihius says, " The Helots labored for 
the Lacedemonians, and were slaves {douloi) ^ Julius Pollux 
says, " They were not slaves, {douloi) but in a condition be- 
tween slaves and//-ce men, {eleuthcron kai doulonP) Xenophon 
says, "Certainly, it is necessary, that a sufficiency of heat and 
cold, of food and drink, of labor and sleep, be allowed to 



384 DisciTssioN . 

slaves^ (doulois.^^) Cyrop, ch. vi, p. 423. Again, *' Or because 
we have now obtained slaves {doulous) shall we punish them, 
if they be dishonest 1" Again, " It is proper that there 
should be this difference between us and slaves (doulon) that, 
as slaves {douloi) unwillingly obey their masters, (despoiais,) 
we, if we deem ourselves worthy to be free men, [eleutheroi,) 
should willingly do that which is most praiseworthy." — Ibid. 
eh. vii, p. 430. 

I have read these quotations to prove to the unlearned, as 
well as to the learned, that the ancient Greek writers used 
the word doulos^ as the proper word for slave. And can any 
one doubt it, after hearing these passages from their writings? 

I now proceed to prove, that the inspired writers used this 
word in the same sense in which it was employed by the 
Greek writers. For this purpose I will quote some passa- 
ges in which it occurs. John viii, 31, " Then said Jesus 
to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my 
word, then are ye my disciples indeed ; and ye shall know 
the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answer- 
ed him, we be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage 
(dedouleukamen) to any man : how sayest thou, ye shall be 
made free ? Jesug answered them, Verily, verily, I say un- 
to you, whosoever committeth sin, is the servant (doulos) of 
sin. And the servant {doulos) abideth not in the house," &c. 
In this passage it is evident that the Saviour represents wick- 
ed men as the slaves of sin ; and truly the service of sin and 
of the Devil, is a most degrading slavery. 

In the same sense the word is used by Paul the Apostle. 
Rom. vi, 17, 18. "But God be thanked that we were the 
servants {douloi) of sin : but ye have obeyed from the heart that 
form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made 
free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." In 
1. Cor. xii, 13, it is used literally for slaves^ thus: "For by 
one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be 
Jews or gentiles, whether we be bond or free [cite douloi, eite 
eleuiheroi") — that is, whether we be slaves or freemen. We 
find the word used in precisely the same sense, in Collos, iii, 



ON SLAVERY. SS5 

11. "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision 
nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond or free {doulos, 
eleutheros) but Christ is ail and in all." Again, we find the word 
doulos in 1 Cor. vii, 21, where even the abolitionists admit, that 
it means slave: "Let every man abide in the same callmo- 
wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant 
[doulos.) care not for it ; but if thou mayest be made free, 
use it rather." The last passage to which I shall now refer, 
in order to show the Bible usage of the word in question, is 
Rev. xiii, 16. "And he caused all both small and great, 
rich and poor, free and bond { eleutherous kar doulous) to 
receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads." 

Thus it is clear, that the word doulos is used in the New 
Testament, as it is in the writings of the ancient Greeks, to 
signify a slave. It is the appropriate Greek word by which 
to designate a common slave. If the Apostles, then, in the 
passages I have read, had been addressing hired servants, 
they would undoubtedly have used the word misthotos^ 
which properly means a hired servant, as distinguished from 
a slave. Indeed, there is no controversy amongst learned 
men concerning the meaning of doulos. All agree, that its 
literal, ordinary and proper meaning is slave. I chal- 
lenge the gentleman to disprove this statement. But perhaps, 
all men of learning are timid.) as he says, afraid to utter their 
real sentiments ! — though he has not informed us of whom 
they are afraid^ 

We will now turn to a passage, in which, the Abolition- 
ists themselves admit, slaves and slave-holders are spoken of, 
viz: 1 Tim. vi, 1, 2. "Let as many servants as are under 
the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that 
the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed." 
Here we have not only servants under the yoke, admitted 
to be slaves, but the word despotes, admitted to be the appro- 
priate word to designate a master of slaves; so that the 
exhortation would literally read thus : Let as many slaves as 
are under the yoke count their owners or masters worthy of 
all honor. These, however, it is said, were heathen masters ; 
25 



386 DISCUSSION 

but here abolitionism gets into trouble, for in the second 
verse we read, "And they that have believing masters, 
(despotasj) let them not despise them, because they are 
brethren ; but rather do them service, because they are faith- 
ful and beloved, partakers of the benefit." Here, we have 
not only despotai, owners of slaves, but believing slave-hold- 
ers, that is, pious slave-holders — Christian slave-holders — 
'' faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit." And the 
slaves, who are also believers, are exhorted not to despise 
their masters, because as Christians they are brethren, but to 
serve them the more faithfully. These servants are admitted 
to be slaves, and the word translated masters^ is admitted to 
mean slave-holder ; and Paul, the inspired apostle, acknowl- 
edg-es them as believers, as faithful Christians. 

How do you suppose, abolitionists attempt to escape the 
force of this argument? Why, they say, the phrase " believ- 
ing master," is understood just as the expression, "reformed 
drunkard." And as the latter phrase means a man who 
has ceased to be a drunkard, though he has been such ; so 
the former means a believer, who, before he became such, 
was a slave-holder, but has since liberated all his slaves ? 
Truly, the cause must be sorely pressed, which cannot be sus- 
tained but by resorting to such perversion of the plainest 
language. No one can misunderstand such a phrase, as re- 
formed drunkard; but suppose we should read of a reformed 
husband^ would we understand by such language a man who 
had been, but was no longer, a husband? We read in 
1 Cor. vii, 14, of "the unbelieving husband," and the "un- 
believing wife," and by these phrases every person of com- 
mon sense understands a real husband or wife, who is an 
unbeliever; and the phrase, "believing husband," would, of 
course, mean a husband who is a believer — a Christian. It 
is equally obvious, that when the apostle speaks of " believ- 
ing masters," or slave-holders, he means real masters who are 
believers or Christians. Accordingly, the slaves are addres- 
sed as those who " havej^ not have had, believing owners, 
and are exhorted not to despise them because they axe bretk' 



ON SLAVERY. . 387 

Ten — on an equality as Christians — but to serve them the 
more faithfully ; and the reason why they should do so, is 
plainly given, viz. : " because they are faithful and beloved, 
j)artakcrs of the benefit^'' 

Yetj this language, according to abolitionism, means 
nothing more than we mean when we speak of reformed 
drunkards! Is this its obvious meaning? Was it ever 
so understood until the rise of modern abolitionism 1 Was 
there ever the least controversy on this subject ? Has not 
the phrase, " believing masters," been universally understood 
to mean, real masters, who are pious men. 

But let us look again at the text I quoted from the first 
epistle of Peter. "Servants — [oikctai) — be subject to your 
masters, with all fear : not only to the good and gentle, but 
also to the froward." Oiketai means household slaves; it is 
so understood even by abolitionists ; and the word here trans- 
lated masters, is despotai — which, as already remarked, the 
abolitionists say, is the proper word to designate owners of 
slaves. In the passage just examined, we found " believing 
masters," "faithful and beloved:" here we find ^^ good arid 
gentle" masters. Is it possible? — good and gentle rob- 
bers! — good and gentle man-stealers ! — believing murder- 
ers! — faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit!!! Should 
he not have written — partakers of the plunder? What? — a 
good and gentle slave-holder ? The word good, as used in 
the Bible, expresses moral quality; and the word translated 
ge7itle, is used by Paul to express one of the moral qualifi- 
cations for the ministerial office (1 Tim. iii, 3). It is used 
to characterize the w^isdom which is from above (James iii, 
17) ; and to express Christian moderation (Phil, iv, 5). 
Will the gentleman say, that a kidnapper, a man-stealer, 
a robber, can possess moral qualities which fit a man to 
be a minister of Jesus Christ? In the mind and mouth 
of abolitionists, it is synonymous with the vilest monster — 
one who lives in "kidnapping stretched out" — who holds 
his servants "by a kidnapper's title" — and whose existence 
on the earth is among the strongest proofs of the necessity 



388 DISCUSSION 

of a hell ! Yet he is here called " good and gentle," " faith- 
ful and beloved." Ought a true believer, a man faithful and 
beloved, good and gentle, to be excommunicated from the 
church ? 

I have proved, as I think, that the word kurios, which 
signifies literally owner, possessor, when used in connection 
with servants, means a real master. It uniformly conveys 
the idea of one possessing absolute authority; and in this 
sense it is used as a name of God. It is also used for the 
head of a family. But the argument does not depend upon 
the word kurios ; for the apostle spoke of masters as dcspo- 
tai — a word which, even abolitionists admit, means slave- 
holders. 

The abolitionists, however, ask us, with an air of triumph, 
whether, when Christ is called Kurios, Lord, we are to un- 
derstand that he is a slave-holder, and that all his people are 
slaves ? Not so fast, gentlemen ; you forget, that the word 
despotes, which, as you admit, means a slave-holder, when 
used with reference to men, is applied also to God. Good 
old Simeon, as he held in his arms the infant Saviour, said — 
" Now Lord (Despote) lettest thou thy servant depart in 
peace," &c. As applied to God, both kurios and despotes 
express his ownership of men, and his absolute authority 
over them. As applied to the master of servants, they mean 
the owner of slaves — a man who has authority to control 
them. 

I think, I have now proved, that the word doulos, trans- 
lated servant^ means, in the New Testament, what it means 
in the writings of the ancient Greeks — a slave, and conse- 
quently that the servants addressed by the apostles, were 
slaves ; and that the kurioi and despotai were slave-holders. 
The conclusion is inevitable, that the apostles of Christ did 
receive slaveholders into the churches organized by them, 
as worthy and faithful Christians, and did not require them 
to liberate their slaves, but to treat them with all kindness. 
Yet wo are called upon to exclud*^ such men from the 
church; and are denounced because we refuse to do so! 



ON SLA\TRY. 389 

Our abolitionist reformers, it seems, are better than the 
Bible — more holy and faithful than the apostles of Christ! 
Nay, they are more benevolent, if we are to credit their pro- 
fessions, than the Son of God! A centurion came to Jesus, 
in Capernaum, told him that his servant, (doulos, slave,) 
"who was dear to him," was very ill, and besouglit him 
to heal him. What was the Saviour's reply? Did he de- 
nounce him as a man-stealer, a robber? No- — he not only 
complied with his request, but said to those who followed 
him, "/Aarc not found so great faith, no, not in IsraelP 
Ah, our modern abolitionists would denounce such a man as 
a hypocrite, and have him out of the church without delay! 
Verily, we have fallen on glorious times ! We are likely 
soon to have the church so pure, that the very best of men 
cannot live in it. [A laugh.] \Time expired. 



Monday, 4 o'clock, P. M. 

[MR. BLANCHARD's FOURTEENTH SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen 3Ioderators^ and Gentlemen and Ladies, FelloW' 

Citizens : 

My argument on the New Testament view of servitude 
will be the opening speech to-night. I have received a let- 
ter from Mr. J. R. Alexander, a respectable man, complain- 
ing that Idid Dr. Stiles injustice in my remarks of yesterday. 
1 would remark that Mr. Alexander is mistaken as to what I 
said. If the moderators will give me time after recess, I will 
show him his mistake, but it does not belong to the present 
argument. 

Dr. Rice has told you that the word " servant" comes from 
the Latin " scrvus'^ which originally meant slave, and did so 
at the time the Bible was translated. This is an entire mis- 
take, as you can all see from the fact that our translators do 
use the word slave in two places. The first is in Jer. ii, 14, 
where we read, " Is Israel a servant ? is he a hom.e born 
slave ? and the second is in the 18th chapter of Rev. where 



390 DISCUSSION 

the word slaves occurs as part of the traffic of the mother 
of harlots. This shows that when the Bible translators used 
the word ^^ servant'^ they meant servant^ — and where they 
used the word ^^ slave, ^ they meant slave. His assertion, 
therefore, that the word servant meant " slave^^ in England in 
the year 1607, is an entire mistake ; as is perhaps two-thirds 
of all that he has asserted in a similar manner in your hear- 
ing, with an assurance to me perfectly unaccountable ; using 
such expressions as, "There is no controversy about it ; the ab- 
olitionists admit," <Slc. I said playfully, that ' I could not hope 
to compete with a Doctor of Divinity in ability' and talent ; 
but I must candidly acknowledge that of the many whom 
I have met in conversation upon this subject within the past 
few years ; Dr. Rice's defence of slavery (with the excep- 
tion of some adroit and somewhat bitter replications which 
evince talent of a certain description) seems to me, decidedly 
the weakest I ever met. This much it is perhaps necessary 
to have said, as I have hitherto made no remark of the kind, 
while he has asserted so constantly that '' I cannot meet his 
arguments ;" that " I have not uttered one word on the ques- 
tion ;" etc. etc. that I have feared he was in danger of scof- 
fing. 

There is one point more in his remarks that requires no- 
tice. He said he wished to know whether the Methodists 
excluded any body from their church for holding slaves. I 
am informed that the early Methodists did exclude slave-hold- 
ers ; (a voice: " they did.") A brother whose hairs are white, 
with 3^ears, and, though unknown to me, I trust venerable 
for righteousness, answers, " they did.^^ I hold here the dis- 
cipline of the " United Brethren in Christ," whose origin 
and ways were the same with the early Methodists. 

This denomination, eight years ago, had nine yearly Confer- 
ences, and the Pennsylvania conference with which I was 
most acquainted, had ninety preachers ; many of them appa- 
rently (and I have attended their camp-meetings) very sin- 
cere, and pious Christians. Otterbein, their founder, was 
ordained by Dr. Coke, the first Methodist Bishop sent out 



t)N SLAVERY. 



391 



by Mr. Wesley to this country. Here is their discipline, 
which declares : " All slavenj shall he excluded from our 
church. If any of our preachers or members are found 
holding slaves, they shall be excluded from the church, unless 
they do personally manumit such slave or slaves ivithin six 
months.'^ — Art. Slavery. 

Here is a large and respectable denomination of Christians, 
not, it is true, commonly, among the most educated classes, 
yet'a laborious and God-serving people, who have acted from 
their origin upon the principle of John Wesley, respectmg 
slavery. "l saw a little short man, a bishop or presiding elder, 
amono-this sort of people in Pennsylvania, with whom I had 
much" pleasant intercourse. He talked about half Dutch 
and half English, and rejoiced in the rise and progress of 
abolitionism, saying; ^'Venlvas in Virginia, I did think to 
get my pones out of a schlave schtate to die}' 

I have now informed my brother of one large class of 
Christians who, upon abolition principles, reject slave-holders 

from communion. ' 

I will now refer him to another, viz: the American Pres- 
byterian churches, which are of Scotch origin, ^^Covenant- 
ers Seceders;' and ^^ Associate Reformer^ Two of their 
ministers are in this house and one, the President moderator, 
(Rev Mr. Prestly) now fills the chair. 

Their preachers number about 300; and their united 
membership some 40.000 to 50,000 persons. As a peo^^e, 
thev are remarkable for tvvo things, adherence to their Bi- 
bles and their Catechism, studying the scriptures, probably 
more than any other denomination. 

This scripturally educated class of Christians, as my 
brother now in the chair will tell you, totally excludes slave- 
holders^both from their pulpits and communion tables. Dr. 
Clavbaucrh, the amiable and efficient President of their The- 
ological Seminary at Oxford, Ohio, was the man who offer- 
ed The excluding resolutions in his Synod. ^ 

Seventy years ago, the ''Friends" made it an article of 
their society to exclude slave-holders. I have seen some- 



392 DISCUSSION. 

^ ^. 

thing of the Quakers and have as good evidence of the per- 
sonal piety of many of them, as I have of Christians in my 
own denomination, and have spent pleasant evenings with 
them in religious conversation. 

Seventy years ago they decided that slave- holding was 
not a Christian practice, and when they freed their slaves in 
Maryland, I was informed by Mr. Russell, that they lost but 
one single member, who refused to obey the rule to free his 
slaves, and was read out of society. Many were offered as 
high as $700 each for their slaves, when they came to record 
their deeds of emancipation, but none sold : but paid, in- 
stead, from 5 to 7 dollars for making out the papers. 

" The Hebrew bondmen were not slaves." This is 
my position. I now proceed to prove it, by reference to the 
jxitriarchical character of Jewish Society. Their ser- 
vants were clansmen, not slaves. Few comparatively, of all 
the ancient Jews were land-holders ; they existed in tribes 
and sub-tribes, and the head man was a kind of sheik, like 
an Arabian satrap, uniting in his person the character of 
prince and priest. The bondmen were his clansmen, owing 
a sort of leigc service to their chief 

Again ; It is evident that those Hebrew bondmen were 
not slaves because there is no trace of a system of legislative 
appliances necessary for keeping up a slave system^ like the 
American ; w^here patrols are provided, informers and prose- 
cutors paid, punishments by stripes ascertained ; rewards 
provided for arresting fugitives ; and sherifTs fined for not 
keeping slaves from all access to types and letters, as in 
South Carolina, and other States where the law whips the 
father upon the " bare back," for teaching his child to read 
the name of Christ. In the Mosaic code, there is no trace of 
all this. The whole spirit and letter of the laws were en- 
tirely different, by which Moses regulated the lowest classes 
of labor. When a land-holder gathered in his grain, a few 
handfuls were to be left for the poor to glean. And their 
servants were their poor, not excepted from the poor as our 
slaves are. They were not to deliver up to his master a ser- 



ON SLAVERY. 393 

vant who had escaped. There was no " fugitive" clause to 
catch runaways in their constitution. He who should steal 
and sell a man, (kidnapping,) or, if the stolen man was 
"found in his hand," (slave-holding,) was put to death. 
Ex. xvi, 21. This was the law of Moses. There were, in 
the Jewish system, no Yankee overseers (the best drivers in 
the world,) to lash them to their work, nor any such provis- 
ions as belong to a slave system. Now in Greek, Roman, 
English, and American slavery, all these exist, and they 
must necessarily exist wherever men are made the proferty 
of men. Looking out of the Mosaic system into any one of 
these systems, is like looking out of the earth (where things 
are in a mixed and tolerable state,) into hell ; which, like the 
slave code, is full of damnable appliances, and fell imple- 
ments of torture, whose very nature and construction stamp 
every one with an evident design of some separate and pecul- 
iar mischief 

4. No: Hcbreiv bondmen ivere not slaves. Let every eye 
patiently behold me, and your " ear try my Vv'ords, as the 
mouth tasteth meat," while I now show, that Hebrew bondmen 
were not slaves^ because the three leadi?ig human rights were 
secured to them by the law of God, viz: life, property, and 
(strange as it may appear to my brother,) LIBERTY! 
Mark now, and let your ear try my words, and see if 1 prove 
what I affirm. I say that they had secured to them the three 
great rights of life, property and liberty, that is, civil liberty, 
with personal liberty, after short indentures. First, they 
were secured in their life. For this, I quote the law against 
murder found in Exodus xxi, 12, " He that smiteth a man so 
that he die, he shall surely be put to death." 

The brother says my arguments from scripture, are ^'•half 
uttered.^ I will, therefore, utter with my whole voice, that 
this divine law, in Exodus xxi, 12, was a law passed for the 
benefit of the bondsman, against the master, as well as the 
master against bondsman. There was "o?zc manner of law ^^ 
for those born in the land, and the stranger from other tribes. 
When we go farther down in the 21st chapter, we find, that 



394 DISCUSSION 

that much perverted passage, " he is his money!'' is only a 
merciful provision in the law, to guard against punishing 
a master capitally, when he did not kill his servant with ma- 
lice aforethought. When a master killed his servant, he was 
put to death, but if, on his trial, it was found that he walked 
abroad a day or two after the assault, the master was not 
punished capitally, " because he is his moneyP My brother 
will not take this, I hope literally. It did not mean that he 
was silver or gold coin. What, then, did it mean? It meant 
this. In the 12th verse, it is laid down, "//c that smiteth a 
man so that he die, he shall be surely put to death. " Why ? 
because " he that sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his 
blood be shed, for in the image of God, made he man." 

A slave is as much a man made in the image of God as 
his master, and the reason given for this law by God himself, 
the same in both cases. Now then, after the law-giver had 
laid down this law, in tenderness for human life, he laid down 
the principle; that if the man died under circumstances 
which showed there was not an intention to kill, (such as 
whipping with a "rod" or stick, and the man's going abroad 
afterwards ;) the killer's life was saved. The reasoning was 
this: if he intended to kill, why did he take a "rod" or 
stick ? and not a bludgeon ? Moreover, why did he not kill 
him while he had the man doAvn ? And in the third place, 
the property mentioned, is the property of the master iiiihe 
service of his bondvian ; and not a property in his person. 
If you had an apprentice bound to you for seven years ; your 
property in him in the sixth and seventh 'years would be 
greater than in the first years, because his services are more 
valuable ; now if the master struck the servant with a " rod,^'' 
but the man afterwards went "abroad a day or two" the in- 
ference from these two considerations, added to the considera- 
tion that the servant was valuable to him, and his death a loss, 
was that the master did not mean to kill him, and therefore, 
was not guilty of murder ; hence, although he was punished 
by the law of " an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," 
yet tlie merciful law of God does not take away his life be- 



ON SLAVEUY. 395 

cause there is no malice aforethought. It is therefore a grops 
and palpable perversion of scripture to say that the phrase 
*' He is his money," shows that the Hebrew master owned 
the body of his servant. You may, with strict propriety, 
use the same phrase of a father and son ; or of a master 
cabinet-maker, who had taught a boy for four or five years. 
Would he let that boy go away at the request of his father 
or himself? No: he would say " T/^ is hoy is my money: I 
cannot spare him." Thus I have shown that Hebrew bond- 
men were secured in their life, the first of all human rights. 
Let us now see how the slave code secures the life of the 
slave. 

My brother said that I, or some one else (!) had written out 
a legal argument with great care ; as though I had to get help 
in constructing my arguments. I have, all along, taken my 
authority from the slave laws of the States ; which I have pro- 
duced and read ; and founded my arguments on the broad 
principles of the word of God. And in this stage of the de- 
bate, and state of the argument, with this audience, it is a 
truly pleasant insinuation of brother Rice that I lack talent 
to meet him. [A laugh.] 

By the law of murder in the Mississippi code, it appears 
that if an " out-lying slave " is hailed and does not stop, and 
is shot down, the law does not call the act in question, nor is 
the shooter accounted a criminal. Thus while the slave's 
security to life is taken away by his incapacity to testify, or 
to be a party in court, the slave code expressly provides for 
killing slaves if necessary to enforce its provisions. While 
the Hebrew bondman had his life secured to him by the 
statute of God. So that if a man laid his hand upon him 
with intent to kill him, so that he died, he was put to death. 

Secondly, The 'pro-peHy of the Hebreio hondman was 
secured to him. See Lev. xxv, 49. "Where the Hebrew 
who had waxed poor," and xms ''■soldi' might be redeemed 
by his kindred, "or if he is able he may redeem himself:' 
Thus, the law contemplated him as a property holder, who 



396 DISCUSSION 

mig-ht acquire enough to pay his debts, and " redeem himselfP 
The word here used, to signify the bond service of the poor 
Hebrew, is, " ebedh^^ which, Dr. Rice says, "is the very word 
for slave;" and this "ebedh" was a legal property holder. 
Moreover, if he was sold one hour before the jubilee, he was 
free at the hour's end ; and if able to redeem himself before 
the jubilee, that is, if he acquired property enough — if he 
had made enough money in the '•'■chedhJ^ condition, he could 
redeem himself and go free. He was sold because he could 
not pay his debts, like the German " redemptioners," who, 
being too poor to pay their passage money to the United 
States, were sold, when they arrived at this country, for a 
term of years, for the amount of the debt, incurred to the 
captain who brought them over. 

But it is said that the Hebrew bond service^ in the scriptures, 
is opposed to "liberty" and "freedom." And it is true. 
But does that prove it to have been slavery? Apprentice- 
ship and all bond service, is spoken of as opposed to free- 
dom, in the same way. We do not deny that there were 
Hebrew servants. There was something there. There was 
a bond service there, but no slavery. These Hebrew 
^^ slaves ^^ as he calls them, had no property when they enter- 
ed into service, but the law allowed them, if able, to redeem 
themselves before their term of service expired; thus showing 
that they could acquire and hold property during their service. 
But "slaves can acquire nothing, can possess nothing but 
what is their masters." In 2 Samuel, 9th, 10th, Ziba, the 
servant of Mephibosheth, who was a Hebrew bondman or 
"ebedh," had 20 ^'■ebedhsf^ and king David afterwards divided 
the land between his master and himself. This Ziba Avas 
a capable man and gained this property v^rhile a bondman 
himself — an ebedh — "the very word for slave," as my 
brother says, yet he had twenty ebedhs. So, 1 Samuel 9th 
chap., Saul was directed by Kish his father, when a young 
man, to go out and hunt for his asses. This was before Saul 
was elected king. His father, Kish, told him to " take one 
of the servants," and search for the animals. Saul, after 



ON SLAVERY. 397 

passing through many places, was afraid, from his long ab- 
sence, that his father would leave caring for the asses, and 
begin to care for him. This servant, who was not a head- 
servant, but simply one of the rank and file ; produced one- 
fourth part of a shekel of silver, to supply a gift to the man 
of God, in the neighborhood, who would tell them the way 
they should go. There are other instances where these 
ebedhs, had money, independent, and without the knowl- 
edge of their masters. The fact that they could redeem 
themselves, and the fact that Ziba had twenty (ebedhs,) and 
that this servant had a large sum, in silver, show that the 
Hebrew servant was a legal 'property holder^ secured in this 
right, as their masters were, by the law of God, Not that 
every one actually had property, but every one might have, 
and it was as secure, and the courts were as open to them as 
to their masters. They were not chattels. 

And, in the third place, they had their liberty secured to 
them, that is, their ci\'il liberty, which was perfect, with per- 
sonal liberty after short indentures. The reason of this 
bond service was simply that untaught heathen, brought 
among the Jews, might be kept steady until fully reclaimed 
from their savage ways and worship. It was a wise and 
good apprenticeship to the business of knowing and serving 
God. Meantime, having legal existence, they could punish 
their masters, if they were oppressed, and run away with 
impunity if they chose. The fundamental idea of the He- 
brew bond service, and of slavery, are just as wide apart as 
heaven and hell, that is, they are exact moral opposites. 

The very essence of civil liberty, is, that one man has 
the same chance of justice, by the laws, as another, provided, 
first, that life and property, are secured to them. This 
liberty the Hebrew bondmen had, though Cassius M. Clay 
has it not. They were more secure in the three principal 
human rights, than Cassius M. Clay is at this day, and yet, 
C. M. Clay, is a long way from the condition of a slave. 

The proof that the laws were as free to the bondmen as 
to their masters, is the fact, that there was no disabUng sta- 



398 DISCUSSION 

• \ 

tute — that the men were not made chattels. 2. The fre- 
quent and terrible prohibitions against oppression : " Wo to 
them who use their neighbor's service without wages j^ &c. 
" Thou shalt not oppress a stranger^ nor vex him. If thou 
afflict them in anywise, and they cry at all unto me, I will 
surely hear their cry, and my wrath shall wax hot, and I 
will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall be wid- 
ows, and your children fatherless.^^ And if my brother is 
famishing for more scripture, I give him Prov. xxxi, 8, 
" Open thy mouth for the dumb, in the cause of all such as are 
appointed to destruction. Open thy mouth, judge righteously ^ 
and plead the cause of the poor and needy, ^^ 1 give him 
Lam. iii, 35, 36, " To turn aside the right of a man before 
the face of the Most High ; to subert a man in his cause the 
Lord approveth wot^ If he still wishes more scripture, I 
will quote it. The Word of God blazes from beginning to 
end with denunciations against those "whose treading is 
upon the poor ;" and who so destitute, who so poor, as the 
man who does not own his garments, his wife, his child, or 
even himself? It is worthy of the most careful notice, the 
access which the most indigent and lowest people had to the 
person, not only of the judges, but of the monarch himself. 
Witness the two harlots who appeared before Solomon to 
dispute their claim to an illegitimate child. The lowest and 
most wretched outcast thus had free access to their mon- 
archs, who knew that God would judge them if they did not 
pronounce just judgments. There were no grand juries in- 
tervening between the wronged man and the judge, and no 
such thing as advocates known in that day ; but justice was 
direct, and simple, and summary, without delay. 

For these facts, I refer to "Jahn's Archaeology," and 
" Home's Introduction," both of which my opponent will 
acknowledge to be good authority. I refer also to the decla- 
ration of Job, himself a prince and a judge, "If I did des- 
pise the cause (suit) of my man-servant, or of my maid-ser- 
vant, when they contended with me, what then shall I do 
when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall X 



ON SLAVERY. 309 

answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb, make 
him?" Job xxxi, 13 — 15. And I refer to the general de- 
nunciations of the Bible, against those judges who refused 
the suits of those of low condition, all of whom had free 
access to the courts of justice, and even to the ear of their 
monarchs. I have referred to 1 Kings iii, 16 — the case of 
the two harlots before Solomon — and Deut. xvi, 18, " Thou 
shall not wrest judgment : thou shalt not respect persons : 
neither take a gift : for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise 
and pervert the words of the righteous." In the same chap- 
ter it is provided, that judges shall daily sit in all the gates, 
and hear the complaints of all, without respect of person. 
There were six thousand of these judges in the time of Da- 
vid, the King. And this custom was adopted as the most 
certain to bring the judges near to the people ; because, 
sleeping in the cities for safety at night, as they were an ag- 
ricultural people, they passed through the gates in going 
and returning from their labor. They were nomades, or 
herdsmen, and in going to their flocks out of the city, 
they passed directly by the judges seated upon the judg- 
ment seat. They were, moreover, as a people, well instruct- 
ed in the law, and would know whether the judge decided 
right or wrong; and the judges knew that if they judged 
unrighteously, the vengeance of God would overtake them. 
Such was the perfect civil liberty enjoyed by the Hebrew 
slaves. Slaves ! That accursed system has so befouled lan- 
guage, that one can scarcely pick up a clean word ! ! — [A 
laugh.] [Time expired. 



[MR. rice's [fourteenth SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen Moderators^ and Fellow-Citizens: 

[We go for free discussion. We are neither afraid to dis- 
cuss, or afraid to hear discussion. I observe that some are 
in the habit of leaving the house as soon as the individual 
with whom they agree has done speaking. I hope those 
friends who happen to agree with me in sentiment, will not 



400 DISCUSSION 

imitate the example, but will remain and listen to the brother 
opposed to me.] 

I certainly have never thought of calling in question the 
splendid talents, or the eminent attainments of my friend and 
brother, the Rev. Mr. Bknchard. I have known, for some 
t!me how great a man he is. But it will sometimes happen 
that the greatest men will fail successfully to defend a w^eak 
cause. I did not intend to represent Mr. Blanchard as a 
weak marly but as a man laboring to uphold a weak cause, 

I did not come here to meet a weak man. I desired our 
abolition friends to select the strongest man they had ; for I 
felt confident in the strength of the doctrine I hold on the 
subject. The brother seems to think that I insinuated, 
because he had not, for nearly a week, replied to my argu- 
ments from the Bible, that he was an incompetent debater. I 
insinuated no such thing. I meant to say, what I believed 
to be true, that he was oppressed with the difficulties which 
ever attend the defence of serious error; and I believe it now. 

I enquired not whether any particular church, calling 
itself Methodist, had ever excluded slave-holders, as such, 
but whether John Wesley, whose opinion of slavery the 
gentleman quoted, took such ground. I have just received o- 
note from a Methodist minister, worthy of confidence, sta- 
ting that Wesley instructed missionaries to the West Indies, 
to preach the Gospel, but to avoid all interference with the 
subject of slavery. If it is asserted, that he attempted to 
make slave-holding a bar to communion, let the documentary 
evidence be produced. I maintain, that the Methodist church 
never has excluded men from the church, simply because 
they were slave-holders. Although that church has been di- 
vided by the question of slavery, even the northern division 
of it has not yet made slave-holding a bar to Christian fellow- 
ship. And the same may be said of every denomination 
of Christians of respectable size in our country. Some 
small churches have excluded slave-holders from their com- 
munion; but their numbers in the slave States, are ex- 
tremely small. And this fact shows the tendency of aboli- 



ON SLAVERY. 401 

tionism even in its mildest form to take the gospel from both 
masters and slaves. There are, at the present time, as I am 
informed by a Methodist minister who has made the calcu- 
lation, near four hundred thousand negroes, (almost all of 
whom are slaves) members of different evangelical churches 
in the slave States — a number larger than all the churches 
that have made slave-holding a bar to communion ! 

The brother has at last approached my argument from 
the Old Testament ; and he tells us that the bond-servants 

among the Jews were not slaves, but — what think you ? 

clansmen to a sheik ! The Jews, he tells us, were sheiks — 
a sort of petty princes — and the bond-servants were their 
clansmen ! 

[Mr. Blanchard rose to explain. I said that each head 
of a family was a sheik] 

It is notorious, that nothing of this kind ever existed 
among the Jews. Who does not know that they were, and- 
that God designed they should be, an agricultural people — 
not living like roaming tribes of Arabs, but each family 
having their farm, and their home, and their servants? The 
Jewish heads of families shieks, followed by clansmen! 
Such an idea, I verily believe, was never heard of, till the 
dire necessity of abolitionism suggested it, as a desperate 
means of escaping from the plain declarations of the Bible. 
It is purely a fabrication of a fact which never existed. No 
respectable author ever suggested it ; and precisely the op- 
■posite is true, if we are to believe the Bible. But the truth 
is, abolitionism can sustain itself only by outraging all rules 
of language, and all historical truth. Be it so ; the candid 
will judge correctly of its character. 

The gentleman says, the Jewish bond-servants were not 

slaves, because there is no trace of laws to sustain and carry 

out slavery. I affirm, that there are laws, so plain that he 

who runs may read. The law expressly permits the Jews 

to buy bondmen and bondmaids of the heathen. Who ever 

heard of buymg apprentices ? Moreover, the law permits 

the master not only to claim the services of the bondman, 
26 



402 DISCUSSION 

but to enforce obedience to his commands by chastisement. 
The Jews were permitted to buy bondmen, to hold them as 
a possession, to chastise them and thus enforce obedience, and 
to transmit them as an inheritance to children. What other 
laws were necessary? 

Again, he argues, that the Jewish servants were not 
slaves, because, according to Jewish law, the man-stealer 
was to be put to death. Once more, I ask, is there no differ- 
ence between stealing a freeman and forcing him into slav- 
ery, and purchasing a man already enslaved, so as really to 
improve his condition? Is there no difference between 
these two things ? 

But again, the Hebrew servants, he says, were not slaves, 
because the three great rights, life, liberty and property were 
secured to them. And he quotes the law which makes mur- 
der to be punished capitally, because man was made in the 
imao-e of God. But Christians in the slave States believe 
that their servants were made in the image of God, and that 
he who kills one of them designedly, is a murderer ; but this 
does not prevent them from claiming their obedience. More- 
over, it is true, that the civil law protects the lives of slaves, 
about as well as did the law of Moses. The laws may 
not be always faithfully executed ; but this circumstance does 
not affect the argument. I have already stated, that in Ala- 
bama a man was, not long since, sent to the penitentiary for 
ten years, because he was convicted of having murdered one 
of his slaves. The gentleman's argument amounts to this : 
no man can be a slave, whose life is protected by the law, 
who cannot be killed with impunity. If this be true, I say, 
there is not a slave in Kentucky ; because the civil law does 
protect the life of the negroes. And with still greater pro- 
priety I may affirm, that there are no slave-holders in the 
Presbyterian church ; for, as I have proved, the law of our 
church forbids any member to treat his slaves cruelly in any 
way. Yet Mr. B. not only denounces Kentucky as a slave 
State, but condemns the Presbyterian church as a slave-hold- 
ing church. Truly, this is hard! The gentleman con- 



ON SLAVERY. 403 

staiilly reminds me of a certain mechanic whose sign over 
his door was in these words : " All sorts of twisting and 
TURNING DONE HERE !" [Great laughter.] 

But he condemns me for saying, that if I buy a man, he is 
minCf so far as his services are concerned. Yet the Bible 
says, that the servant is his master's ^' money ;^^ and is not a 
man's money his own ? Did you ever hear a man say — I 
have bought an apprentice ? Or " I have bought a hired 
servant ?" Would one of your mechanics in Cincinnati say, 
*♦ I have bought five apprentices, and they are my money V 
The gentleman has seemed particularly fond of telling us 
about the jisis of emigrant Germans and Irish. I think I 
might say, the apprentices of Ohio would show him their 
fhsts^ if he were to speak of them as servants, as the money 
of their purchasers ! [A laugh.] 

But, if the Hebrew bond-servants were apprentices, how 
long did their indenture continue ? Only six years, I think 
he said. It is true, that Hebrews who became poor and sold 
themselves, or were sold, went free at the end of six years. 
But we are speaking of the bondmen and bondmaids^ bought 
from the heathen, from whom the Hebrew servant is ex- 
pressly distinguished. The scriptures teach, that the Jews 
might buy them, hold them for a possession, and transmit 
them as an inheritance to their children. I should like to 
inquire of the gentleman, whether apj)rentices are bequeath- 
ed as an inheritance to the children of the man to whom 
they are bound 1 Is this the law of apprenticeship in Ohio ? 
The ridiculous absurdity of the idea, shows how sorely ab- 
olitionism is pressed to support its claims, and how glaringly 
it is obliged to pervert God's w^ord, that it may turn the 
edge of the sword of the Spirit. 

As a further evidence of the truth of this remark, ob- 
serve the course pursued by the gentleman in his rep{ ^l- In 
attempting to prove, that there were no slaves among the 
Jews, he confined his remarks to the case of the Hebiew 
sold for six years, in consequence of poverty, and said co- 
thing of the bond-servants bought of the heathen, who we o 



404 DISCUSSION 

slaves for life. The law itself, as I distinctly stated and 
proved, places the condition of the Hebrew servant in con- 
trast with that of the bond-servanl bought of the heathen, 
and forbids the latter to be treated as the former. I will 
again read the passage. 

" And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen 
poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to 
serve as a bondservant : but as a hired servant, and as a 
sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto 
the year of jubilee, * * * * for they are my servants, which 
I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not he 
sold as hondmeiiP 

Here the law distinctly states, that the Hebrew servant is 
not to be compelled to serve as a bondman, shall not be sold 
as a bondman ; yet the brother presents the case of the He- 
brew servant, sold for six years, as though it were identical 
with that of the bond-servants of the Hebrews ! 

Why does he not take up the case of the real bondman, 
bought from a heathen master, held as a possession, and be- 
queathed for an inheritance 1 — " for an inheritance for ever." 
Does this language mean a "short apprenticeship?" The 
Universalists tell us, that forever does not mean forever, but 
only a limited time ; but I never heard before, that it signi- 
fied so short a period as five years ! [A laugh.] The term 
employed is the strongest word in the Hebrew language ; 
■yet it means five years! This is on a par witlrhis assertion 
that the servants of the Hebrews were clansmen to Hebrew 
sheiks! Who ever heard of a sheik whipping the fami- 
lies under him? and buying them? and holding them as a 
possession? and bequeathing them as an inheritance? 

If the gentleman can get over the difficulty placed in his 
way by the plain letter of the Bible, he must have far more 
talents, and learning too, than I can pretend to. 

[Mr. Bla^thard. — I did not say five years — I said six 
years.] 

I Oh ! yes — six years : — " forever" does not mean only five 
tis^lrs — -it means six years. I stand corrected ! [Loud 



ON SLAVERY. 405 

laughter.] If the Hebrew servant is bought one year be- 
fore the jubilee, then ^^ forever" means one year ! If it was 
only three months, then three months was forever! Verily, 
if abolitionism continues much longer, I should not wonder 
if ''forever" should come to mean nothing at all. [Laugh- 
ter-l 

But he tells us, that Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, 
had servants of his own. The probability is, that before 
having servants of his own, he had obtained his freedom. 
On this subject, however, we have no information; and, 
therefore, the fact stated is a poor offset to the plain declara- 
tions of the Bible I have produced. 

Servants among the Jews, the gentleman tells us, owned 
property, and therefore were not slaves. And what evidence 
does he produce, that they held property? Why, the ser- 
vant who accompanied Saul in searching for his father's 
asseSj had " the fourth part of a shekel of silver," of which 
Saul had no knowledge ! 

This servant could not be a slave, because he had in his 
pocket the quarter of a silver shekel (worth about five cents). 
Indeed ! Why, there is scarcely a slave in Kentucky, but 
has as much as that, and more. Some of them can show 
you laid up in a chest in their quarters, a hundred dollars, 
besides a horse and saddle of their own, purchased out of 
their little savings. They sometimes buy themselves and 
their wives too. Yet because this sjervant of Saul had a lit- 
tle bit of silver, unknown to his master, he was " protected 
in the sacred right of property," which is the mark of a free 
man, and he could therefore be no slave ! Why the gentle- 
man is proving, very fast, that there is no slavery in the 
United States, nor in the whole world. 

Aye, but they enjoyed liberty ! liberty ! Yes ; and so do 
the slaves in our country, about to the same extent. What 
liberty did they enjoy? What does the brother mean by 
the term ? If he means, that the servant could go where 
he pleased, serve whom he pleased, and obey or not, as he 
pleased— then, I say, he had not his liberty. If a man can 



406 DISCUSSION. 

buy me — if I am his possession — if he can bequeath me to 
his children — if he can beat me with a rod, only so that I 
do not die under his hand. — will the gentleman say I am 
free? 

He says that the Jewish servant labored under no disabili- 
ties — he w^as a man. The truth, however, is, that the ser- 
vants among- the Jews were bought from the heathen — that 
they w^ere held as a possession — that they could be be- 
queathed, and be inherited — that they could be personally 
chastised — and that they are designated by a word which 
uniformly means slave. Whether, in view of these facts, 
they were apprentices, hired servants, or slaves, I leave you 
to judge. 

The gentleman has been threatening us all along with 
his two speeches of an hour-and-a-half, on the Bible argu- 
ment ; and when they come, he tells me, all my Hebrew 
and Greek will be called into requisition. Well : I have 
not had much use for the Hebrew and Greek as yet ; but I 
shall wait calmly and patiently for those powerful speeches. 

He has repeatedly insisted, that the word eved does not 
mean slave; because the translators of our English Bible 
did not so render it. He says, they did use the word slave 
twice. But does he not know, that the -word servant^ de- 
rived from the Latin — servus — n, slave, originally, and at 
the time our translation was made, signified a slave ? True, 
the translators use the word slave twice ; but what does this 
prove? Does not the word they have translated slave, oc- 
cur more than twice? And did they not, in translating this 
word, as in many others, render it by different words having 
the same meaning? But the abolitionists admit, that doulos 
is translated servant, when it means a slave ; os in 1 Tim. vi, 1, 
2. " Let as many servants {doulous) as are under the yoke," 
&c. "Art thou called being a servant {doulos), care not for it." 
Now let me turn the gentleman's question against himself, by 
asking, — if, as abolitionists admit, the word doulos, in these 
passages, means slave, why was it not so translated ? It 
does mean slave m these passages, abolitionists themselves 



ON SLAVERY. 407 

being judges ; tlie translators render it " servant," which, ac- 
cording to the gentleman, they never could have done, ii' it 
meant slave ! Again, I am irresistably reminded of the sign — 
" all sorts of twisting and turning done hereP And is this 
the best that can be done to show that there was no such 
thing as slavery among the Jews ? 

In reply to Mr. B.'s denial, that the Hebrew word eved 
means slave, I asked him a plain question ; he has not an- 
swered it ; and I fear he won't. When the Hebrews meant 
to speak of a slave, what word did they use ? I must insist 
upon an answer. I hope he will not refuse ; yet, I do con- 
fess, I greatly fear he will forget it. I am really in earnest, 
and shall be truly gratified to hear his answer. 

And now, let me urge my last argument from the scrip- 
ture, to show, that the " servants" spoken of in the New 
Testament were slaves ; and it is drawn from the directions 
which the apostles of Christ addressed to those persons. I 
say, they are directions suitable only to slaves : '* Obey 
your own masters ^vith fear and tremhling.^^ " Be subject 
to your masters tvith all fear ;" and that not only "to the 
good and gentle, but to the froward." And it is added — "for 
this is thankworthy, if a man, for conscience toward God, 
endure grief suffering wrongfully." Would the brother 
address exhortations like these to the hired servants in Ohio? 
Does he, as a minister, read to them these directions, as de- 
fining their duty? Would not any hired servant in the 
State, or in this country, deem it an insult to have such ex- 
hortations addressed to him ? They are as free as their 
masters ; they render quid pro quo for all they receive. 
Are they to obey "with all fear?" — to serve "with fear and 
trembling?" Are they bound to submit themselves to the 
froward, "enduring grief, suffering wrongfully?" If the 
gentleman's assertions be true, (for he says, these passages 
must apply fully and fairly to hired servants,) the apostles 
so exhorted such. Let this be known throughout free Ohio, 
as the abolitionist doctrine. I suspect, it will not be very 



408 DISCUSSION 



palatable, at least to hired laborers. I say, these exhorta- 
tions were addressed to slaves, and that they are applicable 
to slaves alone. [ Time expired. 



Monday Evening, 7 o'clock. 

[MR. BLANCHARd's FIFTEENTH SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen Moderators^ and Gentlemen and Ladies^ Fellow- 
Citizens : 

I will answer the question which my brother has urged 
so frequently, since he evidently deems it important, viz : 
*'If the Hebrews wished to say ' sZaz/'e,' what word would they 
employ?" I do not think of any single word at present, but I 
suppose that they employed a circumlocution analagous to 
the Greek phrase used to designate a slave in the New Tes- 
tament, as in 1 Timothy vi, 1, doulos hupo zugon, ^^ senmnts 
mider the yoke^^^ or under bondage to heathen masters who 
held them as slaves, and not servants to the children of God, 
No single word in the New Testament necessarily means 
"sZave." It takes a ^^ doulos under the 7/oA'e" to mean one. 
When I sat down, I was in the midst of an argument to 
prove that the Hebrew bond-servants were not slaves because 
they had secured to them by law the three great fundamen- 
tal rights of man ; life^ liberty^ and property. I showed that 
they might be redeemed from their bond service by any of their 
relatives, or might redeem themselves if able, before the jubi- 
lee, and that they must therefore, (if allowed the latter privi- 
lege,) have held property while in their condition of bond- 
servants. In answer to this, my friend states that the negroes 
in Kentucky often have money and other property of their 
own, and sometimes purchase themselves and their families. 
This argument seems cruel and unfeeling in him, when my 
brother knows that if they have acquired five hundred or a 
thousand dollars by their owner's permission, or indeed, any 
sum whatever, their masters can, and often do take the whole 
from them and sell them South. It often happens that when 



ON SLAVERY. 409 

a slave has agreed to pay six hundred dollars for his liberty, 
the master receives from him three, four or five hundred dol- 
lars of the amount, and afterwards sells him. And in doing 
this, the Kentucky master violates no law, but simply uses 
his slave-holding rights. If the poor slave has but a shilling 
it belongs to the master. Old Billy Cravens, a Methodist 
minister, who belonged, by family connexion, to the aristoc- 
racy of Virginia, and who preached many years against 
slavery to both slave-holders and slaves, had closed his ser- 
mon on one occasion ; and, when the collection was being ta- 
ken up, he saw the stewards going up into the gallery to cir- 
culate the plates among the slaves; "Stop !" cried Billy 
from the pulpit, with his stentorian lungs, " Stop !" " Dont 
go there ! They hav'nt got any thing : They don't own 
their hats, their coats, or their bodies. No," (said he, rais- 
ing his voice to the top,) " there is not a louse in their gar- 
ments that don't belong to their masters." This is literally 
true The master owns the body and the garment and all 
that is in it or upon it. Though sometimes, kind masters 
will permit them to have money, yet that is granted as a 
privilege and not as a right. 

But the Hebrew servant had a o'ight to his property the 
same as his master, and if his master took it away from 
him he could recover it back by suit at law. That is, he was 
a marij with the rights and immunities of a man. While the 
slave has neither. You can all see the difference between 
a man's holding his money or his wife as long as I permit 
him, and holding them by a sacred right of which none can 
deprive him. One state is slavery, the other liberty. The 
slave is in the first condition. The Hebrew servant was, as 
I have shown in the last, moreover, the Hebrew servant not 
only was a legal property holder, having access to the courts 
of justice to secure him in his rights, and to punish ag- 
gressors, who should trespass upon his rights ; but, after 
his master's death, in certain cases a share of his goods fell 
to his servants. Abraham said, " I go childless, and one 
born in my house " (to wit : Eliezer) "is mine heir." So, 



410 DISCUSSION 

after lie had taken Hagar to be his wife, the reason given by 
Sarah, why Ilagar should be put out of the house, was, that 
Ishmael, the son of Hagar (who was a slave according to my 
friend) should not he heir (!) with Isaac. (Gen. xxi, 10.) 
Hagar M'ent out, accordingly, because she was ^^jput forth.^^ 
Now if Hagar had been a slave, it would not have been ne- 
cessary to put her out. She would have gone out very 
willingly. They would have had but to open the door and 
point to the north star, (if there were a Canada in the region) 
and she would have gone out quickly enough of her own 
accord. [A laugh] Slaves will always go free when permit- 
ted unless slavery has already broken their souls upon its 
wheel. But the point is this ; Ishmad had a right to be co- 
heir with Isaac, otherwise there would have been no force in 
Sarah's plea to expel her. But the merciful slave-holder 
of the South, allows whatever he allows to slaves, as a priv- 
ilege, not as a right. The slave cannot keep a shilling in 
his pocket, one moment longer than until his^owner sees fit 
to take it from him. Why he may take all he has and sell 
him too! the owner may sell hi7n^ with his shilling in his 
pocket. If the master dies, not a cent of his property goes 
to his slave. But the slave is put up with the hogs and 
sold for a division among heirs. My brother knows all 
these facts, but I suppose he means to argue the best he can. 
[ A laugh. ] 

I have shown that the Hebrew servant has secured to him 
as rights, his life, his property, and his civil liberty, with per- 
sonal liberty after his indentures expire. "Oh but" says 
Dr. Rice, "according to the gentleman ; eternity means only 
six years !" 

Now Dr. Rice knows that Dr. Wilson, of this city, who 
strenuously opposes abolition, teaches in his pamphlet, that 
fifty years is the longest term the Hebrew bond service could 
last, and my friend does not and dare not dispute the fact. 
There was no perpetual servitude for the ear-bored servant. 
Nor is fifty years any nearer a literal " forever," than six 
years? I observed you smile at his reply to me on this 



ON SLAVERY. 411 

point, but I could not tell whether you laughed at the smart- 
ness of the joke or the folly of the argument. Both were 
somewhat marked. 

The Hebrew servant was secured, I repeat, in life, liberty 
and property, in neither of which the American slave either 
was or is ; and I have shown that Roman, Grecian, Eng- 
lish, and American slavery are one and the same. Now if 
you wish to abolish slavery in Kentucky, what have you to 
do ? Nothing, but to strike the chattel principle from the 
code, and then give the emancipated free access to the courts. 
Repealing the chattel principle turns the slaves into men, 
and giving them access to the courts, secures to them the 
rights of men. This sweeps slavery from the soil. There 
is no person in this audience but can see this. If you 
strike out the chattel principle and enable slaves to come in- 
to courts of justice and establish their rights to person, wife, 
children, property, and character — what is there left of Amer- 
ican slavery ? Now these two things the Mosaic code did. 
No : I do not speak correctly. The Mosaic law did not 
strike out the chattel principle, for it 7iBver was there. There 
was, therefore, nothing of the kind to strike out. But it 
allowed the lowest order of servants free access to courts of 
justice; and these two things, viz: the absence of chattelism 
and legal security, show conclusively, that no such thing as 
slavery did or could exist in Judea. Give the Jewish law 
of bond service to Kentucky, and the thousands who lie down, 
slaves to-night, will rise in the morning free men. Establish 
the Hebrew code throughout the States, and there will not 
be a slave left to wet the soil with the tears, and the sweat of 
his unpaid labor, in the whole country. So utterly false is 
it, that " God did expressly permit his people to hold slaves." 

Again : — All the Hebrew servants who were bought from 
the heathen, were to be circumcised. Gen. xvii, 13. " JEZe 
that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy mo- 
ney, must needs be circumcised.^^ And this law of circum- 
cision alone shows that they -were not slaves. For they 
had nothing to do, to free themselves, but simply to refuse to 



412 DISCUSSION 

be circumcised J unless you adopt the abominable and mon- 
strous supposition that they might be forced to be circum- 
cised and profess the true religion. Thus their relation to 
their master was a voluntary condition^ while slavery is in- 
voluntary, hereditary and perpetual, in the slave and his pos- 
terity. Hebrew servitude was voluntary, and limited, ordi- 
narily, to six years, and could never go beyond fifty: and 
even from this modified bond service, they could free them- 
selves after they were bought from the heathen, by refusing 
circumcision, 

Maimonides, contemporary with Jarki, (both writers of 
authority with Jews,) says, that the master who had bought 
a foreign servant, must win him over to the true religion in 
one year or send him back to his tribe. And his statement 
surely has reason to support it ; seeing there is no other sup- 
position possible, but the absurd one that the Jews filled their 
land with forced converts who were forced to undergo cir- 
cumcision. If one of these servants bought of the heathen 
had disliked his condition, refused to be circumcised and 
become a Jew, what could they do ? Seize him and cut off 
his foreskin before the eyes of the people ! Surely it was 
not so that the Hebrews made converts to their religion. 

Now Professor Jahn, in his Archaeology, a high author- 
ity in Jewish statistics, says that these bondmen "were circum- 
cised," and that " after circumcision they were recorded 
Ai\ioNG THE Hebrews." 

Now in the light of all these facts, let us look into Judea, 
and see what sort of a thing this bond service, or religious 
serfdom was. Remember, that not only the Hebrew servant 
who was waxen poor and sold for debt, but the bond-servant 
bought from the heathen, was required to be circumcised, 
and all " ivere reckoned among the Hebrews,^^ and the law of 
the Hebrew servants was, that they should serve for six 
years and then go free. " What then," says one, " was the 
fifty-year jubilee for?" It was to free any remnant who had 
waved their right to go out at six years, by having their ear 



ON SLAVERY. 413 

bored before the judges and agreeing to remain until the next 
semi-centennial jubilee. 

♦ But what was the Hebrew bond service instituted for ? 
"Was it not founded on the same reason as slavery? Was it 
not indeed slavery for six years,?' No. The end proposed 
was to bring in heathen and convert them to God. If a ser- 
vant relapsed into heathenism, his wife and children whom 
he had obtained while in service, he could not compel to fol- 
low him into idolatry and wretchedness. If they remained 
steadfast in the true religion ; he might redeem himself as 
soon as he was able without waiting for the jubilee ; and 
he was, at all events free when jubilee came. For in that 
year, Hebrew bondmen, foreign servants, circumcised, ear- 
bored servants and all went free. Lev. xxv, 10. 

The Jews were few land-holders, each land-holder own- 
ing a great tract, and each head-man was a priest-prince or 
sheik — a sheik is a sort of a head of families who unites the 
sacred and civil characters of priest and magistrate in his 
own person. These heads of tribes, called " elders'^ were 
general heads of families like Boaz the husband of Ruth. 
And their clan was their " house-hold," in registering which, 
the grandson is frequently called the son ; indeed, the descen- 
dants generally, were called children, and the head man the 
father, or prince. Such was the patriarchal state. If a ser- 
vant at the end of six years was unwilling to leave his master, 
he was obliged to take his master before the judge and make 
that declaration in his presence. His ear was then bored, 
and he staid with his mastp; till the fifty-years jubilee. The 
mass of servants were Iiebrews by birth, and their servitude 
of course was only six years. Those who were bought 
from the heathen became Hebrews by circumcision, and 
says Jahn, " -zrcre reckoned among the Hehreivs;^^ from that 
time. In consequence of this they came under the law of 
six years. The little remnant of ear-bored servants went 
free at the jubilee ; but the great mass went free in six 
years. 

In object and effect it appears, that the Mosaic law of bond- 



414 DISCUSSION. 

service was a sort of missionary mill, to take up the serv- 
ants of the heathen and grind them into children of God. 
A system of moral screw-blocks and pulleys, to elevate the 
heathen from their abject degradation, sunk to the lowest 
pitch by their worship of idols, to the pure and holy and 
elevated worship and service of the true God. 

Is that sj^stem to be quoted here as authority for Ameri- 
can slavery, which lays stripes on the back of a slave if he 
but teach his child to read the sacred name of Jesus ? 

Moreover, there was in Judea one manner of law for the 
stanger and him born in the land. But, you recollect, that 
in the Mississippi criminal code, an article reads thus, " The 
provisions of this act (the criminal code, condensed into 344 
"sections,) shall not be construed to apply to slaves." The 
same law, in principle, was adopted in Kentucky in 1802. 
The slave is, therefore, left under the brute's criminal code, 
to be whipped, sold, or killed, as the owner's exigencies may 
demand. But the Hebrew bond-servant had the same crim- 
inal law, the same judge, and the same free access to courts 
of justice, as his master had. The judges held their courts 
in the gates of all the cities and towns through which the 
population passed every morning and evening. In David's 
time, there were six thousand of these judges! See what 
ample pro\'ision they had for the administration of justice 1 
You will read it in Chronicles xxiii, 4. 

The people brought their causes before these judges, m 
person, as heretofore said, Avithout intervention of advocate 
or jury. And before the manners of the people were cor- 
rupted, the men who were made judges were those most dis- 
tinguished for wisdom, piety, and integrity. Job was one 
of these judges, as is evident, from his speaking of himself 
as "rising up to go to the gate." This wise, and cheap, and 
equitable administration of justice existed among a peo- 
ple who were better instructed in their laws, perhaps, than 
any other nation in any age: who, by the appointment of 
God, wrote their statutes upon the posts of their doors, the 
borders of their garments, and the frontlets of their fore- 



ON SLAVERY. 415 

heads. Judicial proceedings were all summarjT-j as tipon the 
complaints of orphans in the courts of Kentucky. And 
Home informs us, in his " Introduction to the Study of the 
Scriptures^^ where the matters above are explained in detail; 
" The Hebrew bondmen were required to be instructed in 
the laws, on the sabbaths and feast-days, equally with the 
rest of the inhabitants;" while our slaves are forbidden the 
language in which the laws are written — and, while slaves 
can never appear in courts as parties, or witnesses in their 
own case, the Hebrew bondmen had free access to the per- 
son of the judge, and brought their own suits in person, as 
the harlots came to king Solomon, and the woman deputed 
by Joab, for restoring Absalom, came to king David. 

Thus the poorest poor, the meanest bondman in the whole 
land, if cruelly treated, could come at once to the judge, 
lodge his complaint ; and the judge at once despatched an 
officer with him to bring the person whom he accused be- 
fore him for judgment. The case between them was then 
heard and summarily determined by judges, subject to an 
immediate appeal to God, who had denounced and executed 
the direst judgments upon those who perverted the cause of 
the poor while sitting in the place of judgment. 

Now to say that the condition of men, so circumstanced, 
was slavery, and, on the strength of such averment, to build 
the assumption, that " God permitted his people to hold 
slaves," betrays an entire want of acquaintance with the 
facts ; or a total misapprehension of the bearing and con- 
nection of those facts with the principles and elements of 
civil and personal liberty ; or, what is equally deplorable, i 
an utter ignorance of the nature of human rights, and of 
liberty itself 

Behold, by contrasting the two, the exceeding unfairness 
of making the elevating and enlightening Hebrew bond- 
service, a justification and precedent for American slavery. 

Moses instituted this" legal bond service in an age when 
absoluteism was the rule in all civil and ecclesiastical matters. 
At the present day, in enlightened countries, liberty is the 



416 DISCUSSION 

rule and restriction the exception. Moses brought men a 
step forward from an age of darkness toward one of light. 
Slavery takes society backward to maxims and principles 
which belong to an age of darkness. In other words — 
Hebrew bond service brought the race forward; slavery 
takes it backward. 

You will, by an illustration, perceive the incongruity and 
unfairness of quoting the few restrictions which Mosaic 
bond service imposed on Hebrew servants, all of which were 
made necessary by merciful reasons in existing circumstan- 
ces, to justify the entire deprivation of rights by Ameri- 
can slavery, by chattelizing human beings, which no cir- 
cumstances can make necessary, and against the spirit of 
surrounding institutions. 

Suppose you had a family to rear in a prison-city.; and 
your yard was environed by other yards occupied by cul- 
prits, and men confined as such ; the jail-yard on one side, 
the State's-prison-yard bounding you on another, the work- 
house on the third, and house of correction on the fourth. — 
To rear and conduct a family under such environment, 
many restrictions and impositions would be requisite, for 
security and morals, which would be arbitrary and impious, 
even, to lay upon the members of your household in a city 
like this we inhabit. And yet, to bring the restraints imposed 
upon a pious household, in the midst of a prison-city, to excuse 
parental cruell}'', is a poor and weak incongruity and absurdi- 
ty, compared with fetching Mosaic bond service to screen and 
justify American slavery. For in the supposed case, the spirit 
and object of the two families are the same, while their circum- 
stances are opposite. But Hebrew bond service, and slavery 
have no one principle in common. The difference between 
them is the difference between taking fifty prisoners, in the 
midst of a vast prison, and, leaving some of the prison regu- 
lations unrepealed, yet putting your fifty into a system where 
they iyistantly cease to he jprisoners^ and gradually become 
perfectly free — and taking a class of persons and making 
them prisoners in the centre of a free population. Moses 



ON SLAVERY. 417 

legislated when the world was a prison, and his laws made 
Judea a free State, in the midst of it. Slavery legislates in 
the heart of Christendom, and every spot which it regulates 
is a bastile. Moses was environed with slave States, and 
produced and conducted a free State in their midst. Slavery 
is surrounded by free States, whose polity it is all the while 
mastering and moulding to its own. In the Hebrew system, 
the utmost that can be said is, that Moses did not take away 
all restraints, which the world had imposed on human lib- 
erty, at once. Slavery invents and imposes restrictions 
which did not before exist. Every one knows that the Jews 
became a free nation. Between the Babylonish captivity and 
Christ, there is among them no trace of slave, though envi- 
roned by a world full of slave States. It was the operation 
of the Mosaic code which made them free. Thus Mosaic 
bond service took those whom the world had made slaves, i. 
e., servants " bought of the heathen," and turned them into 
freemen. Slavery takes those whom God made free and 
turns them into slaves ! The restrictions of the bond service 
grew less and less, by its own legitimate operation, till the 
thing itself faded out and disappeared. Slavery is perpetu- 
ally increasing its guards and fastenings, the longer it stands, 
and must do so from its own nature. And the reason is, 
that Hebrew bond service was a measure for freedom — the 
slave system a contrivance for despotism. 

The friends of temperance in Ohio, are now asking their 
legislature to take the power licensing dram-bars, from those 
who now hold and exercise it to the injury of society ; and 
put it into the hands of majorities of the people. The rea- 
son of this movement, is a temperance reason, and the move- 
ment itself a step toward destroying the dram-bar system. 
They hope the people will refuse licenses altogether. There- 
fore, they vote to place the license power in their own hands. 
Now if we were seeking to turn dram-sellers out of the church, 
and a vindicator of dram-bars as " not sinful," should quote 
this temperance action in support of their cause, saying: 
*'See the best temperance men in Ohio voted to give majori- 
27 



418 DISCUSSION 

ties power to license dram-bars ! Would they have done 
this if they had thought dram-selling sinful?" Such a man 
would outrage fairness and truth, respecting temperance, 
precisely as fairness and truth are outraged by quoting the 
Mosaic bond service which killed slavery out of Judea, to 
prove it not sinful in America ! One would be quoting a 
temperance measure to shield dram selling ; the other, a lib- 
erty-measure to vindicate slave- holding. 

Whatever temporary restrictions Moses left upon bond- 
men, " bought of the heathen," by the Jews, every one of 
his laws was a repeal of some principle of absolute despot- 
ism, in the midst of the world of slavery. Like this placing 
the license law in the hands of the people, his servitude- 
laws, were, every one of them, liberty movements. My op- 
ponent's doctrine, put in practice, is, in every part, a slavery- 
movement ; and quoting Mosaic practice, for it, is a dreadful 
perversion. Moses legislated mankind out of an enslaved 
state into a free state ; while his doctrine, that " slave-holding 
is not sinful," would legislate men out of a free state, into a 
slave ! He thus, with terrible fatuity, brings the light of 
God's word to conceal the darkness of slavery, and weaves 
righteousness itself into a cloak to cover sin ! by drawing 
illogical inferences from just and necessary institutions of 
past ages, and seeking out from antiquity, every restriction 
upon human liberty he can find there, to weave them into a 
snake coil of argument, wherewith to bind down American 
Christianity, to tolerate American despotism, in an age of 
reformation, and in a land of liberty and light. [Applause.] 

I have done with the Old Testament ; and I must tell my 
brother that what I have now spoken is nothing which I 
have written down since I was sick. [A laugh.] 

Gentlemen Moderators^ and Fellow-Citizens : I now com- 
mence my argument, to close the debate, upon the New Tes- 
tament. I stand in the Gospel of Christ, to plead for my 
clients, three millions of human beings, who cannot plead 
for themselves, and I beg, in the name of God, who pities 
them, and us all, that you will hear me with patience and 



ON SLAVERY 419 

candor. But though I go into scripture, I am not going to 
turn this argument into a mere bandying of authorities, and 
a lecture on the interpretation of words. I am weary with 
this everlasting criticism upon Greek and Hebrew. I will, 
however, remark, as to one authority whom my opponent 
refers to, so perpetually. I mean Dr. Cunningham. I have 
shown you why he was not in a favorable situation, (eccle- 
siastically speaking.) to understand human rights. As to 
Dr. Cunningham, personally, 1 have nothing particular to 
say. I saw him pleading the cause of the '•'■Free Church of 
Scotland" standinof near the seat of the chairman of the 
meeting, behind whose seat was placed, upon a small table, 
some decanters of choice liquors, surrounded, and as occa- 
sion required, tasted by his brother divines, doubtless, to 
keep up the inspiration, and sustain the fatigue of a long 
meeting in Exeter Hall ; and I have occasion to know, that 
his Scotch authorities, the Cunningham fraternity, are as 
good against the cause of " total abstinence," as against that 
of the slave. I have neither time nor inclination to quote 
such authorities. 

But I will give you one plain, easy rule, by which inter- 
pretations of scripture may be tested, to see if they are true 
interpretations or false. My friend told you, on Friday, that 
the Hebrew word ^^ ebcdh" "is the very word for slave^^ 
while another word ^'-saukir" means "hired servants." As to 
" doulos," he says, that " the literal and ordinary meaning of 
the word d-oulos, is slave'' I take this from his printed 
pamphlet, page 177. 

Now bear in mind, that if this be true, the translators of 
our English Bible never once, in the whole Bible, have given 
the word " doulos" its " literal and ordinary meaning V See 
what a Bible according to Dr. Rice, we have got ! The 
translators of which have never once given to the word clou- 
los its "literal and ordinary meaning " for douhsis not transla- 
ted slave in the whole New Testament ! and yet it is an im 
portant word, and one of frequent occurrence ! ! The only 
time the word slave occurs in the New Tt^stpmpnt i^;.. -Roy, 



420 DISCUSSION 

xviii, 13, where the Greek is ^^somaton^^ or bodies. U cbedh 
is the very word for slave, the translators have not in the Old 
Testament once translated " ebedk " by the word by which it 
should have been translated ! What must become of people's 
confidence in our English Bible if such statements are to 
be believed ! Gentlemen ; there are other words than these 
used to express slavery. It takes a " Doulos hupo zugon ;" 
a " servant under the yoke " to mean a slave. When the 
sacred writers wished to speak of a slave, they had no diffi- 
culty in describing one. But the ordinary meaning of these 
words is not slave. 

His error in stating this, is the same as that of a man 
who should affirm that "^v/yZ" is "the very word" for 
" owl ;" " bird " may mean " owl ;" and so doulos may mean 
slave ; but these are not their ordinary meanings. If one 
were telling a fable of the owl and spoke of it as '' the 
bird;^^ the connection would show that the owl, was the bird 
meant. So the connection must show that "ckfZ/i" and 
"^07//(95" mean *'^slave^^ or they ahvays mean ^'^ servant.^'' 
They are generic words like ^^bird,'^ while "owl" and 
"slave" are specific words, having a specific meaning. 
^^ Servant''^ is the '-ordinary and literal" meaning of both 
''ebedh'' mu\'' do7dos." 

I was therefore amazed at my friend's assurance when, 
declaring " slave " to be the ordinary meaning of these words, 
he could add ; " There is no controversy upon this point !" 
What ! No controversy whether " ebedh" and " doulos " or- 
dinarily mean " slave " when that meaning is not once given 
to them by the translators in the whole word of God ! Old 
Testament and New ! 

But I said I would give you a plain, easy rule, by which 
you can try his interpretation of these words, and see if it be 
true. The way to try it, is, to put his definition in place of 
the word itself, and see how it will read. " The < literal and 
ordinary meaning' of 'cbedh' and 'doulos' is slave," says 
Dr. Rice. Now take this definition and go through the 



ON SLAVERY. 421 

Bible, putting his definition in place of the word, and if his 
definition be true it will not change the sense. 

Take Psalms cxvi, 16, " O Lord^ truly I am thy servant; 
1 am thy servant and the son of thy hand-maid^ Accord- 
ing to Dr. Rice, this will read — " O Lord, truly I am thy 
slave; I AM THY SLAVE, and the son of thy female slave!" 
The Hebrew word for hand-maid here, is not, however, as I 
have seen it slated in some abolition writings, " ahdah^^ but 
another word. Again, in Romans i, 1, Paul, a servant of 
Jesus Christ,^^ would read, '-'■Paul, a 'slave' of Jesus 
Christ. ^^ Thus, my brother not only makes the Eternal 
God the Father, but Jesus Christ himself, a slave-holder ; and 
all the apostles, who are called the " douloi " of Jesus Christ, 
his slaves ! In Col. i, 7, and iv, 7, Epaphras and Tychicus 
are called " sun-douloi " of Paul, which Dr. Rice would call 
fellow-slaves of the apostle. I pause to say, also, that in the 
solemn address of the Judge at the last day — " Well done, 
good and faithful servants " — must be read, " Well done, 
good and faithful slaves!" ^Thus God and Christ are 
made slave-holders, and the apostles and ministers of his 
church, slaves! Not only so, but the angel who said to 
John, in Revelation, "I am thy sun-doulos," ivas a fellow- 
slave of God with John the Divine. 

Thus his definition, carried through the whole Bible, 
makes a horrid havoc of its meaning, and turns the whole 
book into a Newgate calendar, where God is chief superin- 
tendent, and angels and apostles the turn-keys and slaves of 
his will. 

f - So in Luke xvi, the case of the steward who had wasted 
his master's goods, and went to one and said, how much 
owest thou my lord? &c., that w^as a "doulos;" and these 
servants, or "douloi," are represented as owing, having run- 
ning accounts, with their lord ; that is, they were property- 
holders, having houses and accounts of their own. Does 
not this simple fact stultify and cast into utter error the doc- 
trine founded upon the false assumption, that "doulos" is a 
slave? Remember, the steward says, "how much owest 



422 DISCUSSION 

thou to my lord." Thus does his false definition make 
havoc of the meaning of the scripture, and prove itself false 
by clouding and confounding God's truth. 

But the "New England divines!" the "New England 
clergy 1" my brother is evermore backing and sustaining his 
sentiments and interpretations with opinions of the New 
England clergy. 

It becomes necessary that I should say something of these 
divines ; and, to prevent misconstruction, and charges of 
abuse, I wish to say, in the outset, that the mass of New 
England ministers, wherever found, East or West, in my 
deliberate judgment, for broadness of views and singleness 
and integrity of heart, will compare with any other class of 
men on earth of equal number ; and that they will do more 
things in the course of a year for the sake of duty and con- 
science, without reference to their interest. Yet they are 
not all of this stamp; nor, unfortunately, the majority of 
those whom Dr. Rice has quoted in favor of his doctrine in 
this debate. 

One, whom he has often quoted, is a natural born high 
churchman, the president of a high church seminary, and a 
fit representative of his class of New England clergy. By 
high churchman, I mean those men with whom the gospel 
is grown weak, and who are evermore bringing in church 
power, and the power of a technical orthodoxy to eke out the 
power of truth : and high churchism^ being in its nature spir- 
itual despotism, is perpetually bringing in the principles of 
other despotisms to justify and strengthen itself Hence the 
leaning of this class of ecclesiastics to the doctrines of 
slavery. 

Next to the high churchmen, are a class of men like Dr, 
Bacon of New Haven, who have some noble sentiments, 
and generous hearts, and who sincerely love the truth. 
Hence, like Br, Bacon^ when they freely utter themselves, 
they put forth sentiments which make a clean sweep of the 
whole doctrine of slavery. These men have a strong sense 
of justice, and a deep abhorrence of oj)pression, but stag- 



ON SLAVERY. 423 

gered by the overbearing influence of the high church par- 
ty, and dreading to be deemed " ultra," by those who make 
this party their standard of orthodoxy, and discretion ; de- 
terred, moreover, by the natural respect for established 
errors of interpretation ; and disgusted by the faults and 
deficiencies of some leading abolitionists ; this class sel- 
dom say a smart thing against slavery, but they utter some- 
thing of another sort to balance it. They make progress, 
but they move one step this way and one step that way : and 
when, at length, the disturbing causes shall be removed, 
they vA]l be out-and-out abolitionists. 

Next to these are the abolitionists themselves ; honest, sim- 
ple-hearted, and clear-sighted ; but few of them dwellers in 
high places ; who take up the truth, and the cross with it, to 
bear both after Christ. These give slavery no quarter, but 
in principle and in fact, in doctrine and in practice, they 
hold it doomed, and act accordinoflv. 

The next large class of ministers are men who have the 
minds of followers, and in their several locations do the best 
Ihey can. The prevailing element in the whole body of the 
clergy of New England is decidedly abolitionist, when it 
can be fairly brought out. The General Conference of 
Maine Congregational churches, have unanimously con- 
demned slavery, and Dr. Rice's report on the subject to his 
last General Assembly. The Massachusetts General Asso- 
ciation have done likewise, but with less specification and 
point ; and others will follow in a little while. 

Having spoken of the propensity of the high churchmen, 
to walk softly beside, and look lovingly on civil despotism, 
it is proper that I should not leave the subject without say- 
ing that there is one New England minister, who, I believe, 
my brother has not yet quoted, and, w^ho, through wariness, 
I is seldom quoted to his disadvantage, who, yet influences 
I the policy of the eastern churches towards slavery, at this 
I time, more, perhaps, than all others put together. Concern- 
i ing this man, I will say nothing but that, if Talleyrand 
had been a Congregational minister , Talleyrand^ s history 



424 DISCUSSION 

would have answered for his. I shall not name him, nor 
need I, for, whenever you meet an intelligent New England 
minister, give him this description, and he will tell you the 
man. 

But how long shall such men bear rule in the church of 
Christ ? How long will intelligent and enlightened Chris- 
tians for the seductive boon of sectarian quietude and tem- 
porary exoneration from self-denial in] opposing slavery, 
endure the leadership of those who are resolved to keep 
them in church fellowship with those who deem no interest 
or relation of time or eternity sacred, which stands in the 
way of slavery ? — men in whose hands the gospel itself 
becomes a yoke, and its blessed precepts fetters ; before whom 
marriage, parentage and wages fade away as they are driving, 
in their car of slavery, rough shod, over the hearth and 
hearts of mankind ! 

Why do they do this ? Gracious and compassionate God ! 
What folly blinds them ! What have they done with our 
free Bible ? Surely this is that bhndness of a land which 
precedes and presages destruction. *' Quern Deus vult per- 
dere prius dementaiy 

They have turned our Bible' into a smith shop whence 
consecrated hands bring fetters for the feet and manacles for 
the mind. They make the Old and New Testament a pair 
of hand cuffs; and the whole book a straight jacket for the 
soul ! They have transformed the Eternal Jehovah into a 
slave-holder, and his holy inspired apostles into overseers 
under him, and the ministers of Jesus Christ into book- 
keepers, and drivers, set over separate gangs of men ! 
«' Just God ! O what must be thy look, 

" When such a man before thee stands, 
*' Unblushing with thy sacred book, 

" Turning its leaves with haughty hands, 
" To wring from out its text sublime, 

"This creed of blood and hate and crime!" 

But shall they prosper who do this ? No, never ! The 
light which beams from that burning page like the eye- 
flash of God, piercing and dispersing the mists which they 



ON SLAVERY. 405 

have thrown around it, as has been already said, and shall 
so dazzle and confound their vision, that like Elymas the 
sorcerer, they shall seek at noonday some one to lead them 
by the hand. Nay, that hand which has been thrust into 
God's word, to bring out" chains for his children shall be 
smitten like the hand of Jeroboam at the altar of Bethel, 
when it was stretched out for the destruction of the Prophet 
of God. For those who teach the doctrine of slavery are 
found in the very wickedness of Jeroboam who "made 
Israel to sin." Those who say that the Hebrew servants 
were slaves, and that God permitted the slavery of Hebrews, 
thereby justify the general enslavement of their species, and 
their principles if carried out, would lead to the sale of eve- 
ry poor insolvent laborer of Ohio. It is a Christian duty to 
pray against their success ; Forbid it, O thou most merciful 
God! 

I come now to the direct argument from the New Testa- 
ment. There are few whims more absurd than the notion 
that slavery and slave-holding derive any sanction whatev- 
er from the New Testament. But I will take up one argu- 
ment, which might produce some effect. My brother quotes 
the passage containing the words, " believing masters '" 
1. Timothy vi, 2, and triumphantly asks, in what part of the 
Bible are such things as "believing" villains, ''believing" 
and " faithful " murderers, &c. I answer thus: The apos- 
tles in planting churches outside of Judea, planted them in 
Roman slave-holding countries. Some slaves came into the 
church with their masters. Others had masters out of the 
church. When Paul is instructing those who have masters out 
of the church, he says to them " art thou callcd,^^ (or convert- 
ed,) " being a servarit, care not for it, but if thou may est be made 
free^ use it rather, ^^ precisely the sentiment expressed in the 
paraphrase by a modern poet. 

" Wait for the dawning of a brighter day, 

"And snap the bond the moment when you may," 

This was the sentiment of Paul, and was addressed to 
Christian slaves who had heathen masters. The Roman 



426 DISCUSSION 

Empire extended throughout the world. There was no Can- 
ada outside its border, where the fugiiive was safe. Judea, 
hitherto their refuge, was now a Roman province. 

The Christian church did not wish to preach sedition and 
rebellion. If they recognized the right of war, in defence 
of life and liberty, they had no means. Hence, Paul gave 
such advice as we now would, to a slave in the heart of 
South Carolina. 1 Tim. vi, 1. "Let as many servants as 
are under the yoke, count their own masters worthy of all 
honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blas- 
phemed." Here the Greek is " doulos hupo zugon," which 
is, " servants under the yoke," and is applied to those ser- 
vants who have heathen masters, to distinguish them from 
servants who had believing masters, spoken of in the succeed- 
ing verse. I admit the clouloi hwpo zugon to have been 
slaves. And they were hereby advised to treat their mas- 
ters with respect, that the reputation of the Christian church 
be not tarnished with the charge of preaching sedition, and 
the " name of God and his dodri'/ie blasphemedJ^ The next 
verse is addressed to those who have believing, or Christian 
masters, " and they that have believing masters, let them not 
despise thcm^ because they are brethren, but rather do them 
service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of 
the benefit." " These things teach and exhort." Mark the 
language of this text. " They that have believing masters 
let them not despise themP Why? A slave despise his mas- 
ter, when that master can cowhide him at any moment, or 
send him to the jailer to be flogged, and hand-cuffed, or sell 
him.. Ah, things had changed with those who had believing 
masters. They are all equal now. They are brethren. 
Servants must not therefore look with scorn upon their 
former masters, but rather do them service, for Christ's sake, 
and "because they are faithful and beloved;" not because 
they can compel them to work. Is that slavery? And 
these are the masters addressed in Col. iv, 1. " Masters give 
unto your servants tliat which is just and equal, (i. e. "jus- 



ON SLAVERY. 427 

tice and equality," gr.) knowing that ye also have a master 
in heaven." Is justice and equality slavery? 

While heathen, they stood in the relation of master and 
slave. But now, that they have entered the fold of Christ, 
they are brethren — equal men. " You, therefore, that were 
servants, despise not your former masters. But rather do 
them service, for Christ's sake, and because they are faithful 
and beloved, partakers of the Gospel benefit with you." 
Onesimus was a slave, it would seem, when he entered the 
church, but afterwards became the Bishop of Ephesus. And 
Ignatius, in A. D. 107, writes concerning Onesimus, and 
blesses God they have so good a Bishop. You perceive, 
therefore, that not one of those passages upon which my 
friend relies to prove the point for which he adduces them, 
afford the least countenance to his doctrine. 

Before I take up the direct argument on the New Testament, 
I wish to consider a few more points presented by my brother. 
He insists, and relies much upon the fact that Christ and his 
apostles did not denounce slave-holding, in so many words, 
or forbid it, though slavery was all around them. 

I reply, that Christ and his apostles did not denounce gam- 
bling in so many words, though gambling was all around 
them. They did not say, " Thou shalt not gamble." Is 
gambling therefore not sinful ? 

Again: My friend said: "Is it not strange that slave-hold- 
ing which is so great a sin, so much more aggravated than 
gambling, should not be denounced in terms ?" I answer, No. 
There was no need of denouncing it among the Jews, be- 
cause they held no slaves. " But why not in heathen coun- 
tries?" I answer, that the whole heathen religion was, a re- 
ligion of slavery, from beginning to end — from bow to 
stern. Their very gods and goddesses made slaves of one 
another. In demolishing paganism, they destroyed the slavery 
which was in it. Christianity turned the world upside 
down, and slavery was one of the things which fell out. 
Paul, when he stood upon Mar's Hill, uttered doctrines 
which swept from their pedestals the three thousand gods 



428 DISCUSSION 

and goddesses of the Athenian calendar, and, with the destruc- 
tion of heathenism, perished slavery, which was part and par- 
cel of pagan society. This the extract from Ignatius, shows, 
A. D. 107. And it has crept again from paganism into the 
Christian church. We, ourselves have received it from the 
king of Dahomey or some pretty African prince, and have 
given him in return for this institution, " rum, gun flints," 
&c. &c. It is no wonder that this particular feature of pa- 
ganism was not specially and verbally denounced, when 
they were sweeping away the whole system which contained 
it. In destroying the greater evil they were effectually des- 
troying the less, which was included in it; For example, in 
receiving a new servant into your house, you do not take him 
from garret to cellar, and point out to him every article in the 
house, telling him " not to steal this," and "not to break that." 
No, we expect him to follow the great commandment, " Thou 
shalt not steal," and with that we rest content. It was thus, 
that the apostles swept off slavery. In the time of Ignatius, 
so far from holding slaves (though afterwards this came in 
with other corruptionSj) we find they not only did not hold 
slaves themselves, but the Christian slaves, who had heathen 
masters were actually importuning the church to vote the 
church money to buy their freedom. 

" But," asks my opponent for the fiftieth time, " why dorit 
the, Bible condemn it .?" I answer, it does. What is that ter- 
rible denunciation of those who withhold the hire of the la- 
borer by the apostle James, v, 4, but a stern and awful de- 
nunciation of slavery ? Unless you make this denunciation 
to include slave-holders who work their slaves without pay, 
you charge the Bible with glaring injustice. For, in that 
case, all that a guilty rich man need to do to keep his crime, 
and escape its penalty, would be just to pay up his defrauded 
hired laborers, and then get some persons, whom others have 
reduced to slavery, and he may work them without wages 
and be guiltless. Thus, by doubling his guilt, he wholly 
escapes punishment. 



ON SLAVERY. 429 

The Bible also denounces slavery, whenever it denounces 
oppression. 

i Robbery is forcibly taking a man's earnings ; theft is steal- 
ing them; and swindling is taking them by fraud. Neither 
of these is, strictly, " oppression,^' — which is putting your 
hand through a man's earnings, and taking out of the man 
himself the right to acquire ; and when you have stripped 
him, not only of the right to acquire, but of every other right, 
then you have made him a slave. This is oppression com- 
plete. And the Word of God is one blazing wail of fiery 
wrath against this oppression, from Genesis to Revelation. 
" Thou shalt not oppress the stranger, nor vex him." "Woe 
unto him that useth his neighbor's service without wages." 
^' Ye make the poor to howl." " Do justly, love mercy, and 
%valk humbly with thy God." 

Does not the Bible condemn slave-holding, when it con- 
demns, successively, every element and principle of it? 

The Roman Catholics have the form of a curse which 
they employ in cursing heretics. They curse them in their 
head, (the curse, I believe, was made by the doctors of the 
Sorbonne,) in the neck, in the shoulders, in the bowels, in 
the arms, and legs and feet, and so in every limb and member. 
Now when they have thus gone through with the man, is 
not the whole man cursed 1 

All this the Bible does to slavery — condemning every 
element, principle, and part of it. Does it not therefore con- 
demn slave-holding? 

Again : I refer to 1 Tim. i, 10. " The laio was made for 
ucn-stealers^' &c. In abolishing slavery, you abolish that 
calling of the men-stealer, and in abolishing that calling 
you abolish slavery. 

My brother is a Presbyterian, after the most strictest sect, 
and I strive to keep along in his neighborhood. We must 
alike respect this good old Confession of Faith, which I 
hold in my hand, and which contains that far-famed note, 
inserted in 1794, under the 142d question of the Larger 
Catechism, where it stood, a part of the standard book of the 



430 DISCUSSION 

church, unmolested, for twenty-two years. This note, as is 
well known, declares, explicitly, that the Greek word, " an- 
drapodisiais,'' translated " men-stealers," in 1 Tim. i, 10, in- 
cludes " slave-holders," — and quotes the Latin note of Gro- 
tius, already cited in this debate, to substantiate the fact. 
This book was used as the standard of the church for twen- 
ty-two years, with this note appended, (though it had not 
authority as an article of faith,) — and yet he tells us that the 
Bible does not denounce slavery 

As I informed you, the last argument I have to produce 
is the direct argument from the New Testament, and I re- 
gret, on my brother's account, that I did not give him a syl- 
labus of it at the opening of the debate, as it might have 
saved him some impatience. It is as follows : 

1. The co7istitution of Christianity destroyed slavery when- 
ever and wherever enforced. If this be made good, it sets 
the whole question at rest. 

' 2. The character and standing of the first Christians af- 
fords a sufficient guo^ranty against their members holding 
slaves. 

3. The history of the formatiori of the first churches shows, 
that there could have been no slave-holding among them. 
i 4. The discipline of the apostolic church destroyed slave- 
ry wherever it teas enforced. 

The first of my propositions, you will observe, is, that 
the consitution of Christianity destroyed slavery whenever 
and wherever it was enforced. I wish you well to consider 
Avhat a constitution is. It is the supreme law of tlie land, 
an.d lies lower than common law or statute in the polity of 
the community. The common law is silent when the sta- 
tute speaks — the statute is silent when the constitution speaks. 
In England there was no statute abolishing slavery. In the 
Granville Sharpe case, the judges simply declared that it 
always was British law, that as soon as a slave touched Eng- 
lish soil he was free — but that the law had merely lain dor- 
mant. So it was in Massachusetts ; they never enacted a 
statute abolishing slavery ; the Bill of Rights was incom- 



ON SLAVERY. 431 

patible with slavery — the enforcement of the one was the 
abolition of the other. It is so in my native State, and it is 
so in other States, I propose to show, that the constitution 
of Christianity was, and is, the abolition of slavery. And, 
as this is a hinge point of this whole argument, I hope you 
will follow me with patience and care through my remarks 
on this head. 

What was the constitution of Christianity? 

1 . It was the constitution of the Jewish church revised, 
amended, and enlarged by Christ. It was a new edition of 
the Jews' religion, revised, enlarged, improved, and adapted 
to the condition of all mankind. By it the folding doors 
were opened, and the kingdom of God preached to all men, 
inviting all to press in and partake of its high privileges : " The 
lato and the prophets were until John; since that time the 
Jdngdom of God is preached^ a?id every man presseth into it.^^ 
Luke xvi, 16. 

To know what is the constitution of Christianity, there- 
fore, we must have in mind what was the constitution of the 
Jewish church. 

I have already shown, that the Hebrew bond-servants 
were not slaves: and I am about to show, that the Jewish 
constitution was both a non-slave-holding and an anti-slave- 
holding constitution. It was non-slave-holding, so far as it 
regards stealing men and holding stolen men. Ex. xxi, 16, 
*' He that siealeth a man and selleth him., or if he be found in 
his hand., he shall surely be put to death /" Again : the Jewish 
church was non-slave-holding, as to returning fugitive slaves 
from the heathen tribes. Deut. xxiii, 15," Thou shalt not 
deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his 
master unto thee.'''' 

But the Jewish community was not merely non-slave- 
holding., but an anti-slave-holding body; that is, they not 
only abstained from slave-holding, but vigorously opposed it. 
In the 34th chapter of Jeremiah, it appears, that the Jewish 
nation had relapsed into something like slave-holding in this 
way. They obeyed God's command, in letting go their ser- 



432 DISCUSSION. 

vants at the end of six years, and then, under pretence that 
they had complied with the precept by leaving them free a 
single year, they laid hold of and reduced them to service 
for another six years : " Therefore^ thus saith the Lord, ye 
have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming liberty, every 
one to his brother, and every man to his neighbor : behold I 
proclaim a liberty for you, saith the Lord, to the sword, to the 
pestilence, and to the famine: and I will make you to be remov- 
ed into all the kingdoms of the earth" Jer. xxxiv, 17. 

This struggle of the Jewish nation to expel and keep out 
slavery which had begun to insinuate itself through to the 
violated law of bond service, stamped their minds and meas- 
ures as abolitionists : and made them known to neighboring 
tribes as a nation of abolitionists. And the surrounding na- 
tions knew that they were anti-slave-holding people, because 
they had always harbored their fugitive slaves, and refused 
to return them. Those towns along the Ohio River where 
the people harbor, and help off fugitive slaves, are known 
as anti-slavery towns throughout the entire slave-holding re- 
gion. And as the law of God forbid the Jews to return fu- 
gitives to their masters ; as the Jews had abolished the first 
elements of slavery which appeared among themselves ; and 
as they were surrounded by slave-holding nations ; the 
Jewish church was known to be both a non-slave-holding 
and anti-slave-holding church. 

The next question is : what alterations did Christianity 
make in the Jewish constitution? When Peter preached 
Christianity on the day of Pentecost he showed his auditors 
that it was made out of the same promises of which the Jews' 
religion was made. These same promises, made to the ancient 
Jews he told his hearers " were unto them and their children." 
But, though Peter and the other apostles, in founding the 
Christian church, preached out of the Old Testament, show- 
ing that, in substance, the new religion was the same with 
the old ; yet Christianity did make alterations in Judaism-. 
What were they ? 

1. In the first place the Jewish religion made distinctions 



ON SLAVERY. 433 

between male and female as to personal consideration and 
rights. Their women had almost no rights ; they were me- 
nials to their husbands and parents. They had no name in 
the church rolls, and could take no part in their religious 
rites. It is so in Judaism to this day ; if you go into the 
Jewish synagogue on Sycamore street, in this city, you will 
see the men conducting religious worship in the house, and 
the women looking from the lobby, or the gallery in the rear. 
Wives were bought and treated by the husband as serfs 
and dependents. 

The first alteration which Christianity made in the polity 
of Judaism, was to abrogate this oppressive distinction of 
sexes ; declaring that, while the husband is the head of the 
wife, yet in " Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female." 
The degrading serfdom of the woman to the man, was abol- 
ished. Christ declared the husband and wife to be " one 
flesh," and set the woman in the family, by the side of her 
husband, as she stood when first created his helpmeet, and 
not his menial dependent. This was one alteration which 
the constitution of Christianity made in that of the Jew- 
ish church. l_Time expired. 



[MR. rice's fifteenth SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen Moderators, and Felloiv- Citizens : 

[ I wish to state, that I have received a note from the ei- 
ders of the Sixth Presbyterian church in this city (to which 
my brother has been ministering) respecting what I said I 
had been told of its unprosperous condition, in which they 
desire me to recall the statement. They know perfectly well 
what called forth my remark ; my opponent had spoken of 
the declining state of religion in southern churches.] 

[Mr. Blanchard. — I deny it.] 

[The brother did certainly say, that the millenium was 
kept back by the existence of slavery in southern churches.] 
28 



434 DISCUSSION 



/ 



[Mr. Blanciiard. — Yes, I did say so, the curse of slavery 
is on us all.] 

Then, surely the Sixth church, having fully washed its hands 
of the sin, would, like Gideon's fleece, be wet with the dews of 
heaven ! Surely we have the right to expect it to be pros- 
perous beyond any other. Yet such, it appears, is not the 
iact. My remark was made, not in the absence of the per- 
sons concerned, as have been many of Mr. B.'s statements, 
but in the presence of the pastor, who, if my information was 
incorrect, could have at once corrected me. He replied, stating 
all the facts deemed important. There is, of course, no ne- 
cessity of my saying anything more on the subject.] 

I will here notice one of the gentleman's arguments to 
prove, that God has given men permission to do that v.^hich 
is in itself sinful, which I forgot at the proper time. He says, 
God directed the Jews, when about to leave Egypt, to bor- 
row of the Egyptians articles which they were not to return. 

This I deny. The word translated " harrow^'' signifies to 
ask; and it is so explained, if I rightly remember, by Dr. 
Adam Clarke. I utterly deny, that God directed them to 
practice deception, and thus commit sin. The Egyptians, 
trembling under the judgments of God, were anxious to 
have the Jews depart from the country; and God directed 
them to ask of them such articles as they needed. 

The gentleman's argument, seems to be this : it is vain to 
arofue that slave-holdino- is not in itself sinful from the fact 
that God gave the Jews the permission to form the relation; 
because he directed them to borrow what they never meanc 
to return, which according to every code of morals is a sin. 
I deny that they did so borrow, or that God gave them direc- 
tion or permission to do so ; and if he did not, his argu^ 
ment falls to the ground. I take the ground, the correctness 
of which is too obvious to require argument in its support, 
that God never, at any time, under any circumstances, did 
give men permission to do what is in itself sinful. And I 
sayj the fact that he did give express permission to the Jews 



ON SLAVERY. 435 

to hold slaves, proves, that there were, and again may be, 
circumstances under which it is not wrong. 

I have proved from the text of the New Testament, that 
the servants there spoken of were slaves, and the masters 
there referred to, slave-holders; and I have given for that 
opinion the following reasons. 

1 . The word kurioSj translated master, properly signifies 
possessor, owner, master — one possessing absolute authority. 
This being its meaning, when employed to designate mas- 
ter of servants, it means an owner of slaves, over whom he 
has positive authority. 2. The word doulos, translated ser- 
vant, properly and literally translated, means slave. — The lexi- 
cographers uniformly so define it. 3. The Greeks had a word 
which properly and literally .means a hired servant, viz ; 
misthotos ; but it is not used by the apostles in addressing ser- 
vants concerning their duties to their masters. 4. The classi- 
cal usage of the word doulos, as I proved, shows conclusively, 
that its proper and ordinary meaning is slave. It is so used 
by Herodotus, Plato, Harpocation, Pausanias, Eaustathius, 
Julius Pollux, Xenophon, and others. 5. The Bible usage 
was proved to be the same. There doulos stands, in contrast 
with eleutheros, free. 6. Besides, the word occurs in connec- 
tion with the word despotes, which is admitted to mean slave- 
holder] and we read of " belie-ving masters" or slave-holders 
"faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit" — "good and 
gentle" "slave-holders." — And the slaves are exhorted to 
obey them the more cheerfully, because they are pious men. 
7. And finally, the directions given to servants, are such as 
to apply only to slaves. 

I wish now to strengthen my argument by quoting sev- 
eral of the most celebrated commentators and critics — those 
men so complimented by the gentleman, as weak and of timid 
minds- I wish to show the audience, that eminently wise 
and good men are unanimous in giving to the scriptures I 
have quoted, the same interpretation for which I have con- 
tended. We will first examine the views of a few of them 
on the slavery which existed amongst the Jews. 



436 DISCUSSION 

Maltheio Pool, the learned author of the Synopsis Criti- 
corum^ in his comments on Gen. xvi, 6. In 7na?m tua^ sub 
potestate tua, a qua earn non liberavi accipiendo in uxorem se- 
cundum. Utere ut libet, non permittit saevire (maxime in 
gravidam) sed compescere. Jus vitae et necis turn babebant 
domini et dominae. In thy hand — under thy power, from 
which I did not liberate her by receiving her (Hagar) as a 
second wife. Do to her as it pleaseth thee. He does not per- 
mit her (Sarah) to treat her with severity, (especially as she 
was pregnant) but to restrain her. Masters and mistresses then 
had power of life and death [over the slave.] Again, on 
Exod, xxi, 21. Quia pecunia illlus est — Possessio. Comparatus 
est pecunia ejus. Ergo jure moderate castigare poterat 
Consequentca duplex est. Non debet puniri — 1 . Gluia amisit 
quod suum erat, et in eo satis punitus est, quod pecuniae susb 
jacturam feccit. Because he is his money — his possession. 
He was bought with his money. Then he might justly 
inflict upon him moderate chastisement. The consequence 
is twofold. He ought not to be punished ; 1. Because he 
had lost what was his own, and was sufficiently punished 
in the loss of his money, &c. 

Dr. Clarke, on Gen. xvi. "As Hagar was an Egyptian, 
St. Chrysostom's conjecture is very probable, that she was 
one of those female slaves^ which Pharaoh gave to Abra- 
ham, &c. The slave being the absolute property of the mis- 
tress, not only her person, but the fruits of her labor, with 
all her children, were the owner's property also. ^^Sarah^s 
gjiciid ' — This mode of address is used to show her that she 
was known^ and to remind her, that she was the property of 
anoihcrP A^ain, on Gen. xvii. '■^Hc that is horn in thy 
house, the son of a servant — bought with thy money — a 
slave — on his coming into the family. According to the 
Jewish writers, the father was to circumcise his son, and the 
master the servant born in his house, or the slave bought 
with money." 

In view of these extracts from Clarke, I make two re- 



ON SLAVERY. 437 

marks: 1. The audience will remember, that when I chal- 
lenged the gentleman to produce one respectable commenta- 
tor or critic who differed from me in the exposition of these 
scriptures, he triumphantly adduced Dr. Clarke. You now 
see not only that he agrees with my exposition, but that his 
language is stronger than I have used. Hagar, he says, 
was reminded by the angel, " that she was the property of 
another^'' &lq,. 2. Clarke, you observe, appeals to the Jewish 
writers, who say, the master was to circumcise " the slave 
bought with money." Yet the gentleman gravely tells us, 
the Jews had no slaves bought with money. How, then, 
happened the Jewish wa'iters so to understand this law? 
Either Mr. Blanchard is in error, or the Jewish writers 
were strangely mistaken. 

Let us hear Dr. Thomas Scott, one of the best commenta- 
tors in the world. On Levit. xxv, 44 — 46, he says — " The 
Israelites were permitted to keep slaves of other nations ; per- 
haps in order to typify, that none but the true Israel of God 
participated of that liberty with which Christ hath made his 
people free. But it was also allowed, in order that in this 
manner the gentiles might become acquainted with true 
religion." 

We w^ill now consult the excellent Matthew Henry. On 
Levit. xxv, 44, he says — "That they [Jews] might pur- 
chase bondmen of the heathen nations that were round 
about them, or of those strangers that sojourned among 
them, (except those seven nations that were to be destroyed,) 
and might claim a dominion over them, and entail them 
upon their families, as an inheritance; for the year of jubi- 
lee should give no discharge to them." 

You remember, the gentleman told us, the Jews were 
permitted to buy servants only of the seven nations of Ca- 
naanites, devoted to destruction. Henry tells us, they were 
allowed to buy, not of those nations, but of all others. Again: 
Mr. B. told us, six years was the duration of the labor of the 
bond-servant bought of the heathen, Henry tells us, even 



438 DISCUSSION 

m 
the year of jubilee, the fiftieth year, gave no release to 
them: Professor Bush, whom the gentleman will scarcely 
charge with being a man of timid mind, or of walking in 
the old beaten paths, takes the same view of this subject as 
the authors already quoted. 

We will now hear from Professor Stuart, of Andover, one 
of the most learned critics of the age. In a letter addressed 
to a friend, who has kindly allowed me to use it, he says — 
^' Levit. XXV, 46, decides, that the Hebrews might not only 
procure heathen slaves, but pass them, as a part of their 
iriJieritance, to their children. Laresheth ahuzza can mean 
nothing else. The next clause decides the perpetuity of this 
inheritance. lieolom hehem taavodoo^ literally translated, 
means — ye shall do service by them forever ; which can 
mean neither more nor less than that they might be servants 
perpetually, i, c, as long as they Jived. The case of the 
Hebrew servant is made expressly different, by the context, 
and is recognized at the close of v. 46. It is impossible to 
doubt, exegetically, what this means." 

Observe, Stuart (who, by the by, is an anti-slavery man) 
does not only sa}^, that the language will bear the interpreta- 
tion he gives, nor that such is its obvious meaning; but he 
asserts, that it can mean nothing else — that it is impossible to 
doubt what it means — there can be no controversy on the 
subject. This is strong language. 

But let us hear him on the teachins: of the New Testa- 
ment, on precisely the question now under discussion. He 
says : "As to the question — ivhether the bare relation of a 
MASTER to a SLAVE is sin, Paul has settled this. He never 
once bids the master dissolve it, nor liberate the slave from 
it ; but always gives precepts regulating the demeanor of 
both in this relation. What hinders a Christian master 
from treating his slaves w^ell? Nothing but cupidity or 
cruelty ; both of which are sins. Paul would not break, by 
violence, the civil relation. But Paul himself gave precepts, 
in abundance, which, if obeyed, would bring all slavery, 
ere long, to an end." 



ON SLAVERY. 430 

Professor Stuart thinks that the Gospel, emhraced by- 
master and slave, contains precepts which, if obeyed, would, 
ere long, bring slavery to an end ; but he holds, nevertheless, 
that the thing itself is not sin. We are blamed as being 
behind the age, and we have been charged with seeking to 
drive from our church "the New England spirit." Behold 
the lanofuaofe of one of New Enofland's wisest sons ! He 
sustains fully the position for which I am contending. 

What says the brother to John Locke, one of the greatest 
friends of human freedom. He was not, I presume, among 
the gentleman's timid,'narrow-minded commentators. He was 
not under the influence of German critics, whose ideas are 
"baked stiff" in the oven of German hermaneutics ; yet he 
in his paraphrase of the Epistle to the Ephesians, speaks of 
the servants addressed by the apostles, and held by pious 
masters, as " hotidrnen^^ and " bond-slaves.''^ I might also 
quote Gill and Bloomfield, (that acute and learned critic,) 
Chalmers and Cunningham, men revered throughout Scot- 
land, and through the christian church. I may also, with 
propriety, appeal to the General Asembly of the church of 
Scotland ; for that learned and venerable body has recently, 
with great unanimity, adopted a report, in which the ground 
is distinctly taken, that the relation between master and 
slave is not to be regarded as a sin, excluding the master from 
church fellowship. 

The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mis- 
sions — almost all of them New England men — take the 
same ground I am contending for. They were petitioned 
by certain abolitionists, to take the ground that slave-holding 
was in itself a sin, and must be made a bar to communion 
in all the churches organized" by the missionaries, under the 
care and control of the Board ; but they refused. And what 
reasons do they give. 

" Strongly as your committee are convinced of the ^^^.•ong- 
fulness and evil tendencies of slave-holding, and ardently as 
they desire its speedy and universal termination, they still 
■cannot think that in all cases individual guilt>xists in such 



440 DISCUSSION. 

a manner that every person implicated in it can, on scriptural 
grounds, be excluded from Christian fellowship. In the 
language of Dr. Chalmers, when treating on this point in a 
recent letter — the committee would say, ' Distinction ought 
to be made between the character of a system, and the 
character of the persons whose circumstances have implica- 
ted them with it. Nor would it always be just if all the 
recoil and horror, wherewith the former is contemplated, 
were visited in the form of condemnation and moral indig- 
nancy upon the latter.' 

'• Dr. Chalmers proceeds to apply this distinction to the 
subject now under consideration in the following manner, in 
which sentiments substantially Drs. Candlish and Cunning- 
ham, with the whole General Assembly of the Free Church 
of Scotland, unanimously concurred: 'Slavery,' says he, 'we 
hold to be a system chargeable with atrocities and evils, 
often the most hideous and appalling, wdiich have either 
afflicted or deformed our species. Yet we must not, there- 
fore, say, of every man born within its territory, who has 
grown up familiar with its sickening spectacles, and not 
only by his habits been inured to its transactions and sights, 
but who by inheritance is himself the owner of slaves, that 
unless he make the resolute sacrifice and renounce his prop- 
erty in slaves, he is therefore not a Christian — and should be 
treated as an outcast from all the distinctions and privileges 
of Christian society.' 

" Such substantially are the views of your committee, and 
the more they study God's method of proceeding in regard 
to slavery, polygamy, and other kindred social wrongs, as it 
is unfolded in the Bible, the more they are convinced that 
in dealing with individuals implicated in these wrongs of 
long standing, and intimately interwoven with the relations 
and movements of the social system, the utmost kindness 
and forbearance are to be exercised, which are compatible 
with steady adherence to right principles." 

This report was drawn up by Dr. Woods, one of the 
ablest and most godly men who live to adorn ^the American 



ON SLAVERY. 441 

church of Christ ; or, at any rate, ho was chairman of the 
committee. Such is the ground taken by the American 
Board. They approve, as you perceive, the opinion of Dr. 
Chalmers, that the principles and practice contended for by 
modern abolitionism, are novelties in the church. 

I propose now to read a few extracts from the speeches 
made by members of the Board, as published in the New 
York Observer, that we may know their sentiments on the 
question before us. I will, first, read from the speech of Dr. 
Bacon, of New Haven ; and I do so the more readily, be- 
cause in the notice taken of the action of the Connecticut 
Association, by the Watchman of the Valley^ Dr. Bacon was 
paraded boastfully as an abolitionist, and the representation 
I had made of the action of that body was thereon pronoun- 
ced incorrect. We will now hear Dr. Bacon speak for 
himself. 

" We are all agreed that the system and the laws that sus- 
tain it are an abomination in the sight of God and the na- 
tions of the earth. But these memorialists contend that no 
man having the relation of a slave-holder, can give evidence 
of piety. But if there is one thing plain on the face of the 
New Testament, beyond all dispute, it is that in the churches 
formed by the apostles, there were believhig masters, slave- 
holders, and I will never consent to put the Bible under my 
feet to accommodate the views of any man. 

" I would like the report better if it contained a distinct 
avowal that slave-holding is not a sin in itself, in such a 
sense as to disqualify a man for church membership, and on 
the other hand if these missionaries fail of doing their duty 
m inculcating the truth on this subject, they should be call- 
ed to account by the Board." 

I will now read a little from Professor Stowe, a first rate 
abolitionist, and one whom the brother will hardly call weak 
minded or timid. He has bitterly denounced the report 
adopted by our General Assembly; but, with singular in- 
consistency, he warmly defends that of the American Board, 
which embodies the same great principle, that slave-holding 



442 DISCUSSION 

is not in itself a sin whicli should exclude any one from the 
church of Christ. 

" Dr. Stowe said he had conned this report over and over 
again, and he had heard all the objections to the report, and 
he knew they all proceeded from ignorance of it. With 
this prefatory remark he read the report, after which he con- 
tinued to say that it was the desire of the committee to ex- 
press the most decided and fullest condemnation of slavery 
in all its bearings. And as to the evils enumerated as con- 
nected with slavery, every member would say they demand- 
ed immediate discipline. The point where they differed from 
the memorialists was on the question, whether slave-holding 
is a sin per se. Here they did differ." 

Dr. Williston, and Dr. Tyler, of the Connecticut Associa- 
tion, asserted the doctrine put forth by the Assembly. 

"Rev. Dr. Tyler said, after all the discussion, he was 
more and more convinced of the wisdom of the report. 
This he inferred from the directly opposite character of the 
objections urged against it. It is objected to by the gentle- 
men from the South because it denounces slavery, and by 
our abolition brethren because it does not. I therefore think 
we have hit upon the happy 7nean where the truth lies. He 
then showed the views of the committee to be, that the apos- 
tles did admit slave-holders to the church, and for us to de- 
cide against it would be to impeach the apostles. We are 
conscientious in this opinion. Dr. T. then reviewed the re- 
port and expressed the hope that it would be unanimously 
adopted." 

Dr. Wisner takes the same ground : 

" Dr. Wisner lamented this discussion. He said that it 
was evidently directed, not at slavery in mission churches, 
but at southern slavery. He spoke of the general discord 
produced by this subject, and said he had hoped this Board 
would be left free from it, especially when there was already 
another Board organized for the very persons who were urg- 
ing this on us. Let the Union Missionary Board take its 
own course, in its own way j and may we not be permitted 



DISCUSSION 

to pursue ours in the way that our charter prescribes. If a 
rumor had come to us, that in the churches in some mission 
field intemperance was prevaiHng, would this course have 
been pursued by these persons. What would have been 
done? Discuss the merits of drunkenness and temperance 
societies ! No sir. I am constrained to believe that the ob- 
ject of all this is abolitionism in its general bearings, and 
not the good of the poor Cherokee. But can we satisfy 
these gentlemen? One of the last speakers "told us there 
was no common ground unless we go the whole length. 
Common ground, if we come over to them ! And this com- 
mon ground is to give up the Bible, and rely on some prin- 
ciple back of and independent of it. Can we find this com- 
mon ground? Yes, by asking these brethren what they 
claim and come to it. But next year there will be another 
common ground. Yield, and you must yield. I would as 
soon undertake to fill the bottomless pit as to satisfy men 
who have their minds fixed on this one absorbinof idea." 

Such are some of the views entertained by distinguished 
members of the American Board. Much as the brother said 
against commentators, he will scarcely say, that these are 
weak-minded and timid men. 

The same views are entertained by Doddridge, Dr. Mc- 
Night, Bloomfield, Scott, Gill, and in a word, by every 
respectable commentator and critic, and theologian, I ever 
read. 

I will now take up my opponent's last speech, and reply 
with as much rapidity as possible. 

I had asked the gentleman whether the Hebrew word eved^ 
rendered bond-servant, did not mean slave, and if not, what 
Hebrew word did express an idea which could not but be fa- 
miliar to the JcAvish mind, since the nation was surrounded 
by slavery in its worst forms : that is, when an Israelite 
wished to speak of a slave^ what word he used ? I have at 
length, been favored with a reply. He says, he supposes 
they used some words analagous to the Greek phrase in 
1 Tim. vi, 1, doulos hupo zugon^ -'servant under the yoke." 



444 DISCUSSION 

That is, he supposes the Hehreios had no word for slave^ a 
thing known throughout the earth and having its title in ev- 
ery tongue. No man can believe this, unless he is resolved 
to take leave of common sense. I will venture to say, the 
gentleman cannot get a Hebrew scholar in the land to sus- 
tain him in his opinion. It is given up, then, either that the 
■word eved means slave, or that the Hebrews had no word 
for that idea. He did, indeed, tell us in a previous speech, 
that the Hebrew servant sold for six years, is called eved ; 
but such is not the fact. On the contrary, that class of ser- 
vants is contrasted with the eved. 

The gentleman tries to get out of the difficulty, in which 
he involved himself, by attempting to prove by the fact that 
Saul's servant had a little piece of silver in his pocket with- 
out his master's knowledge, that there were no slaves among 
the Jews, by saying, whatever the slave has, his master can 
take away from him. Yes — we knov/ that the slave laws 
permit him to do so ; and so the civil laws would permit a 
father to take away every cent his son might have labored 
for, and saved, even the day before he came of age ; but 
what does that prove ? That masters never allow a slave to 
have a sixpence in his pocket % Or that if a slave has so 
large a sum by him unknown to his master, he is no slave 1 
Or that my son is a slave, because I can take from him all 
his little savings'? 

But the gentleman asserts, that the Hebrew bond-servants 
might be and were property-holders ; and that Sarah was 
afraid that Ishmael, Hagar's son, should be co-heir with her 
own son Isaac. I call for the evidence of the truth of this 
assertion. Let him if he can, point to the provision in the 
Jewish law, authorizing bondservants to hold property. (I 
am not speaking of poor Israelites, but of bondmen bought 
of the heathen, or the strangers living amongst the Jews.) 
If there is any such provision in the law, my brother is the 
very man to find it. Let it be produced. 

As to Sarah's fear that Ishmael might be heir with Isaac ; 
has the gentleman forgotten, that Ishmael was Abraham's 



ON SLAVERY. 445 

son ? That was the ground of her fear, and not because Ha- 
gar was free. 

The gentleman would make the impression, that the slaves 
generally bear a mortal enmity against their masters, and 
are ready to embrace the first opportunity to run from them. 
By way of replying to this representation, I will tell you an 
anecdote. Some years ago, a gentleman who had been a 
resident in Alabama, and who owned a number of slaves, on 
his way to Philadelphia, met on the steam- boat a very zeal- 
ous abolitionist preacher. In conversation he assured him, 
that in a multitude of instances, slaves were very strongly 
attached to their masters, and could not be easily induced to 
leave them. The abolitionist replied, that slave-holders might 
tell such stories : but he believed not a word of them. "Well," 
said the southern gentleman, "you shall have the opportunity 
of testing the truth of my statement. One of my colored 
men, reared in the family, is on board. I will call him up ; 
and you shall be at full liberty to take him with you to 
Ohio." The man was called; and his master said to him : 
" This gentleman is a minister of the gospel. He is opposed 
to slavery, and desires you to go with him to Ohio, and be free." 
The negro considered the proposition seriously for a few 
moments, and then replied: "Ah, massa, I know you; I 
don't know dat gentleman. I'll stay with you." So he went 
to Philadelphia, and lived happily in the family of his old 
master, where I saw him a short time after this occurrence. 
And I can point you to negroes in this city, now livmg in 
the family of their old master, who is no abolitionist, and 
whom it might be difficult for the abolitionists with all their 
zeal, to induce to leave him. Facts like these do afford an 
edifying evidence of the truth of the assertions of abolition- 
ists, that the slaves bear a mortal enmity to their masters, 
and only want an opportunity to escape from them. 

The gentleman tells us, that all slaves among the Jews 
were free at the end of six years. Now it is a litde hard 
that abolitionists in their great zeal for whatever is black, 



446 DISCUSSION 

should run directly against each other. Yet so it is. Hear 
Mr. Thomas, a very staunch abolitionist. 

He says — " It is but candid to admit, before leaving this 
topic, that Gentile servants seem to have been in a condition, in 
some respects inferior to that of Hebrew servants. 1. Tiiey 
were never purchased for six years ; but always till the ju- 
bilee. 2. No mention is made of Hebrew servants, even 
when their ears were bored, laboring for the children of 
their master ; whereas if the master of a Gentile died be- 
fore the jubilee, he was inherited by the children, and re- 
tained until his whole time of service expired." (Lev. xxv, 46.) 
Revieio of Junkin, p. 90. 

Thus does an abolitionist of the first water flatly contra- 
dict the gentleman, and assert that Gentile servants were 
never bought for six years, but always till the jubilee. 

Now if we admit this statement of Mr. Thomas, though 
it is not true ; what proportion of the bond-servants bought 
of the heathen, would live to be free ? The man of thirty 
years of age, bought immediately after the jubilee, would 
be eighty years old, if he should live to see the day of free- 
dom. To a considerable proportion of those servants the 
period of bondage would be during life. But the principlcy 
as already remarked, is not affected by the duration of the 
servitude. If the relation of master and slave is in itself 
sinful, it was wicked to have it continue five years, as truly 
as during life. So we are forced to the conclusion, that, if 
abolitionism is true, God gave the Jews express permission 
to commit sin and oppress their fellow men for forty-nine 
years ! 

He says the Jewish law struck out the chattel principle. 
But what does he mean by the chattel principle ? Is it em- 
braced in the permission to buy servants, possess them, be- 
queath them, and compel them even by chastisement, to 
serve 1 Were not all these elements in the bond service of 
slaves whom the Jews were permitted to purchase from ths 
Gentiles ? If he says, that is liberty, I have no earthly ob- 
jection. If a man who can be bought, and held, and forced 



ON SLAVERY. 447 

to serve, and bequeathed as an inheritance to children forev 
cr, is a free man ; — very well. Then the slaves in the Uni- 
ted States are all free ; and the abolitionist society have 
nothing to do ! Such, however, is not my notion of liberty. 

As to access to the courts, which, he says the Jew- 
ish bond-servants had, (because they passed by the place 
where the court was held) might not the slaves in our coun- 
try have the same rights without destroying the relation? If 
they are treated with cruelty, and can prove the wrong, they 
can have redress even now, at least in Kentucky. But does 
the enjoyment of this r^ht, destroy the relation, or prove they 
never were slaves, but only hired servants? 

Again — the logical gentleman told us, the Hebrew bond- 
servants were not slaves, because, in the first place, they could 
refuse to be circumcised ; and then they could not be held 
as slaves ; and, in the second place, if they were circumcis- 
ed, they became Jews, and their term of service continued 
only six years. And, in proof of this last statement, he re- 
fers to Jahn, a learned Papist, This is, indeed, a curious 
jumble to come from so learned a gentleman as my oppo- 
nent. It is true, that adult persons might refuse to be cir- 
cumcised, and thus avoid being bought by a Jew ; for it was 
not the purpose of Cxod, that the servants of his people 
should be pagans. But, as slavery in its worst form existed 
amongst all the nations around the Jews, multitudes of 
the slaves would desire to exchange their severe servitude 
for that amongst the Jews, which was comparative freedom. 

But Jahn does not say, that the bondmen bought of the 
Gentiles, were free at the close of six years. He does, prob- 
ably, say, that they, on being circumcised, enjoyed all the 
privileges of the Jewish church. This is true. But he 
says, the Jewish bondmen were slaves, in the true sense of 
the word. It matters little, however, what Jahn says. The 
question for us to determine, is — what says the law? The 
gentleman's statement places two of the divine laws in flat 
contradiction to each other. One law, forbids the Jewish 
servant, cold for six years, to be treated as a bond-servant 



448 DISCUSSION 

Levif. xx\\ 39 — 43. And the reason given is: ''For they 
are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of 
Egypt." The other law, if we are to believe Mr. B., re- 
quires the bondmen, bought of the heathen, to be circum- 
cised, and then requires them to be treated precisely as a 
Jewish servant, because they have become Jews ! I'hat is, the 
law forbids the Jewish servant to be treated as the bond- 
servant ; and then makes the bond-servant a JcAvish servant ! ! 

There is not a scholar of any standing to be found, who 
will confirm the gentleman's assertion, that the bondmen 
among the Jews went free at the end of six years. JEven 
his own friends, the abolitionists, will not assert it. 

The brother, however, tells us, that there was one law for 
the stranger, and for him that was born in the land. And by 
the stranger he understands these bondmen who came from 
the heathen, and who, according to him, were not slaves. 
Strangers might, indeed, reside among the Jews, either as 
" proselytes of the gate," or " proselytes of righteousness ; " 
and to these there v/as the same law as to Israelites, though, 
to the former, not the same privileges. But they were not 
servants at all, but were wholly a different class from the 
bondmen bought with money, who were never called 
"strangers." 

He represents the laws of Moses, concerning servitude, 
as designed to keep the servants, bought of pagans, within 
bounds, till they became converted, and joined themselves 
to God's people. This, however, is but a flight of his 
imagination. For servants, when purchased, were to be 
circumcised immediately. There is not one intimation, that 
pagans might be bought as bondmen, and circumcised, if, 
after a time, they became converts. 

All the laws of Moses, he asserts, tended toward liberty. 
This is true, though not in the sense which he gives the 
language. Those laws, so far from forbidding the existence 
of the relation between master and slave, did give express 
permission for it to be formed. But by its formation, the 
condition of the slaves was greatly improved. Their liberty 



ON sla\t:ry. 449 

was far greater under the Jewish law; and, which is still 
better, their minds were delivered from the degrading 
slavery of ignorance, superstition and vice. 

There were some of the gentleman's very eloquent ap- 
peals, which I cannot fully answer. He represents himself 
as pleading the cause of his colored clients, consisting of 
three millions of his fellow men, who cannot be heard. I 
can only say, that if ever any people on earth had occasion 
to offer the prayer — '• deliver us from our friends," they are 
that people! [A laugh.] The only good as yet accom- 
plished, by the advocacy of the gentleman and his friends, 
in their behalf, has been to rivet their chains upon them! 

But now, after so long a time, my worthy friend has been 
forced to reply to my argument from the New Testatment. 
We will now see how far he has succeeded in replying to it. 

He tells us, first, that if the word doulos, translated servant^ 
does mean slave, our translators were most unfaithful, for 
they never once so rendered it. To this argument I have, 
once and again, replied, that the word servant, derived from 
the Latin servus, means literally a slave, and that it had this 
meaning when our translation was made. You observe how 
carefully he avoids meeting this question. I have replied, 
in the second place, that those translators, on whose knowl- 
edge and fidelity he pronounced so eloquent an eulogium, 
did translate this word servant, in passages where the gen- 
tleman himself admits, that it means slave. In 1 Tim. vi, 1, 
2, we have the word despotes, Avhich, according to his own 
admission, means a slave-holder; and yet the corresponding 
w^ord, doulos, which, he acknowledges, in this passage, means 
slave, is translated servant. But I am not particular about 
the word slave. I am quite as well pleased Aviih " sew ant P 
But the question is, what kind of servants were ihoje ad- 
dressed by the apostles, whose masters were believing mem- 
bers of the church 1 I maintain, and 1 have proved by ar- 
guments he has not met, that they were slaves. He asserts 
that they were hired servants. All I ask of him, is to nro- 

duce his evidence. 
29 



450 DISCUSSION 

But the g-cntleman seems to think, he has discovered a 
method of proving-, triumphantly, that the Hebrew word 
eved and the Greek word doulos do not mean slave. He says 
let us test the question, whether slave is a correct translation 
of the words eved and doulos, by substituting that word for 
servant; and with an air of triumph, he quotes the language 
of David — " O, Lord, I am thy slave," <fec. Well, I should 
like to ask him, what he understands the Psalmist to mean, 
when he says, '• O, Lord, I am thy servant" 1 Did he not de- 
sign to acknowledge God as his rightful owner and absolute 
sovereign? Does not God claim the entire services of all 
men? And does He not punish all who rebel against Him? 
What more would any slave-holder on earth ask, than to own 
the slave, and control his entire services ? But he also quoted 
the language, of Paul, who calls himself " the servant (doulos) 
of Christ;" and he asks, whether Paul was the slave of Christ. 
I answer, the apostles addressed Christ as Lord (kurios) and 
Master [despoles) ; and in so doing, they recognized his un- 
bounded authority over them. They called themselves His 
servants, [douloi,) thus acknowledging their obligations to 
serve Him perpetually, with all their powers of soul and 
body. Would any slave-holder claim greater authority, 
than the gentleman's own illustration gives him? So his 
triumphant answer to my argument is calculated very much 
to strengthen it ! 

His second evidence that doulos does not mean slave, is 
found in Luke xvi. The steward, he tells us, went to his 
fellow-servants [sun-douloi) and reduced the amount of their 
respective debts to his lord; and he is quite confident that the 
servant placed in so responsible a station, could not have 
been a slave. There are two capital faults in this argument, 
viz : 1. neither doulos, nor sun-doulos, occurs in the passage 
referred to. The steward went to his lord's "debtors," not to 
his fellow-servants. 2d. If these words were there, the fact 
that a master placed a servant in whom he had confidence, 
over a portion of his business, would by no means prove him 
not a slave. I should be pleased to hear the gentleman ex- 



ON SLAVERY. 451 

plain how it is to be inferred that a servant is not a slave, 
because his master places great confidence in him. 

But my principles, Mr. B. says, would justify a rich land- 
holder in Ohio, in buying poor free laborers, and holding them 
as slaves. My doctrine authorizes no man to force a free man 
into slavery. The Jewish law permitted the wealthy Jew to 
buy. for a term of six years, the brother Jew who had become 
poor, and could do no better, though not without his consent. 
And where is the injustice, if God chose to permit a poor man 
to recruit his shattered fortunes, by selling himself for six 
years? Was this arrangement sinful in itself? 

Such appeals to mere prejudice are unworthy of a good 
cause. Declamation like this may make a momentary im- 
pression with persons of unreflecting minds ; but with men 
of sense they will not weigh a feather. 

The gentleman refers me to a note appended by the com- 
mittee of publication to the Confession of Faith, the amount 
of which is, that they who are concerned in retaining men 
in slavery, are guilty of a violation of the eighth command- 
ment. This note was no part of the Confession of Faith of 
the Presbyterian Church ; and it was expunged from the 
Confession long ago. But, if it were still in it, what does it 
amount to ? It testifies against those who are concerned in 
retaining men in slavery. And are we in favor of retaining 
them in this condition ? Have I not stated over and over, 
that I desire and seek their restoration to freedom, as soon 
as it can be done safely, and consistently with other para- 
mount duties? But I am not for tearing up the very foun- 
dations of society, to effect an object not now practicable. I 
am not for spilling floods of human blood, and rending this 
happy Union asunder, to effect w^hat one would think is the 
sum of all human duty in my brother's estimation — the lib- 
eration, at one sweep, of every slave in the country. I will 
not do evil, that good may come. I go for liberating the 
blacks as soon as it can be done according to the Bible ; but 
I will not trample the Bible under my feet, to effect that 
object. 



452 DISCUSSION 

Having now paid due attention to the gentleman's speech, 
I propose briefly to recapitulate, that the audience may have 
the whole ground over which I have passed, distinctly be- 
fore them. And I will commence by, once more, stating 
the question under discussion, viz, ; Is slave-holding in itself 
sinful^ and the relation between master and slave, a sinful 
relation ? In other words, is every slave-holder necessarily 
a transgressor, to be denounced and excluded from the 
church, without regard to circumstances? If the relation is 
in itself sinful, it is sinful under all circumstances, and must, 
therefore, be at once abandoned, without regard to circum- 
stances? It is as truly sinful to hold a slave one hour, as 
fifty years. The duration of the servitude does not affect 
the morality of the relation. 

Slave-holding I have defined to be, the claim of one man, 
tinder certain circumstances, to the services of another, with 
the corresponding obligation, on the part of the master, to 
provide comfortable food and raiment, and suitable religious 
instruction, for the slave, whose services he claims. The 
whole argument of the gentleman has been founded upon 
two false assumptions, viz.: 1. That the question in debate, 
is, whether it is sinful to force a free man, charged with no 
crime, into slavery. Who denies that it is ? Who would, 
for one moment, discuss such a question ? 2. His second 
false assumption is, that all the defective and cruel laws 
which have, at any time or anywhere, been enacted for the 
regulation of slavery, and the injustice and cruelty which 
have been inflicted by wicked men upon slaves, are part 
and parcel of slavery itself, and are essential to the existence 
of the relation between master and slave. That this assump- 
tion is false, I think, has been made perfectly apparent, if in- 
deed it be not self evident. No master, as every one knows, is 
obliged to treat his servant as badly as the civil laws permit 
him. No matter how defective and cruel the laws are, the 
religious master, governed in his treatment of them by the di- 
vine law, may treat them with all kindness, and pay constant 
regard to their happiness, present and future. 



ON SLAVERY. 453 

The conjugal relation is of divine institution ; but it is 
also regarded as a civil institution, and is regulated by the 
civil law. Many of the laws enacted for its regulation, have 
been, and still are, most unjust and oppressive ; and indeed 
over a great portion of the world, the wife has been the 
degraded slave of the husband. But who, in his senses, 
would argue against the relation as in itself sinful, on the 
assumption, that all those bad laws are part and parcel of 
the relation, and are essential to its existence ? The same 
remarks hold good concerning the parental relation. The 
authority of the father over the child, has been very differ- 
ent in different ages and countries ; but the relation itself has 
always been the same. The laws made by human legisla- 
tors, for its regulation, are one thing; the relation itself 
quite another. The former may vary almost endlessly 
without at all affecting the latter. It is right for men to be 
land-holders ; and yet most unjust and oppressive laws have 
been enacted for the regulation of that matter, say, in Eng- 
land. I may with perfect consistency denounce the laws 
which any particular government may pass relative to land- 
holding, without admitting the thing to be in itself wrong. 
So the relation between ruler and subject is not sinful; for 
human government is recognized by God himself. But mul- 
titudes of most iniquitous laws have been passed, and do 
now exist, for the regulation of that relation. I may con- 
sistently denounce the bad laws, whilst I defend the relation. 

Precisely so, the relation between master and slave has al- 
ways been the same ; though the laws regulating it, have been 
widely different in different countries, and in the same coun- 
try at different times. Who, then, unless his judgment is 
completely warped by inveterate prejudice, would think of 
confounding the relation itself with all those different laws ? 

Who would think seriously of charging any relation among 
men, with all the crimes committed in that relation ? Yet 
this is the amount of a great part of the gendeman's argu- 
ment. Take away the two assumptions I have pointed out, 
and what remains but declamation t You may put all the 



454 • DISCUSSION 

rest of what the gentleman has occupied so many hours in 
saying, into a thimble. 

Again I ask, what is slave-holding ? It is the claiming, 
under certain circumstances, of the services of a man, with 
the corresponding obligation of providing abundant food, 
raiment and religious instruction ; in a word, of treating him 
with all kindness, as a rational, accountable, immortal being. 

This is the slavery which I say is not, in itself sinful. 
Oou abolitionist friends really do not seem to know what 
slavery is, nor what we are met to discuss. They propose 
one question for debate, challenge me to discuss it, and then 
spend the whole time in discussing other matters. 

We are not debating, let me say once for all, whether it is 
a sin to reduce a free man to slavery. 

We are not debating whether slavery, as a system is a 
righteous thing. An institution which ought to be perpetua- 
ted. 

We are not debating whether all the laws which have ever 
been enacted regulating slavery, in our country or in others, 
are just, humane or wise. 

We are not debating whether slavery is an evil, the re- 
moval of which is to be ardently desired and promoted by 
all wise and lawful means. 

Neither of these questions did I come here to argue : yet 
my opponent has argued little else. We live in a country 
where slavery has long existed. I regard it as a great evil, 
and desire its removal ; but the question is, how this is to be 
accomplished ? and what is the duty of men living in slave 
States, so long as the system continues. Is every slave- 
liolder obliged either instantly to free his slaves regardless of 
consequences ; or live in heinous sin against God ] 

[Time expired » 



ON SLAVERY. 455 

Monday Evening, 9 o'clock^ P. M. 

[MR. BLANCITAE-D's SIXTEENTH SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen Moderators^ and Gentle^nen and Ladies, Fellow- 
Citizens : 

1 shall briefly advert to some things which have fallen 
from my brother, and then close my argument. 

In respect to one reference which I made when last up, I 
was a very little at fault, quoting from memory and in haste. 
It was the passage in 16th Luke, 1st verse; the word was 
^^ oikonomos^^ and not ^- doulos,' as I intimated. Though the 
relation of the wasteful steward was the same with that of 
the person called "doulos" in other places. 

The reference which I intended to have made, was to 
Matthew xviii, r28, the case of that " doulos " whom his lord 
had forgiven his own debt of one thousand talents : but the 
same " doulos '" went out and took by the throat one of his 
^^ sun-douloi,''^ or fellow servants, who owed him only one 
hundred pence, and cast him into prison till he should pay 
the uttermost farthing. This scripture shows, that the New 
Testament douloi were business men, property-holders, hav- 
ing accounts current with their lord ; and is alone sufficient 
to overthrow Dr. Rice's extraordinary assertion, that the 
"<^ow/oi" were slaves. 

The Avasteful steward, and his fellow debtors, hov\'ever, 
were in the same condition and relations, so there was no 
mistake in the argument, but a slight one in the reference. 

My friend asks me to show authority for the Hebrew 
bond-servants holding property in their own right. Jahn, 
(ArchaeoL 181,) says, that when a bond-servant was circum- 
cised, he was reckoned among the Hebrews. The law of the 
Hebrews attached to them, and of course they v/ere entitled 
to hold property. The scripture also necessarily implies the 
same — Lev. xxv, 49, '■'■ If he (the ebedh) be able, he may re- 
deem hiinsclfJ^ As to the commentators and other autliori- 
ties whom he has presented from an early stage of this de- 
bate, oft times repeating the same names, as in his view so 



456 DISCUSSION 

weighty and conclusive of the matter in question, I simply 
observe that, I attach but little weight to them in settling 
this great practical question. So I have said, and so think ; 
and, therefore, I have preferred presenting slavery to you 
in its elements and practice, its roots, limbs, and branches, 
that you might behold and condemn it for yourselves, rather 
than to vex your understandings with the quoted or garbled 
opinions of fifty different men, who, perhaps, copied their 
opinions from one another, and of whom, perhaps, not one 
is better capable of judging than many here. There is no- 
thing novel in his course. Authorities and interpretations 
are the common refuge of every cause which cannot stand bv 
the principles of reason and justice. I have often met the 
arguments which he has adduced here, and I can sincerely 
assure you, that they are steadily and rapidly giving way 
and disappearing before the increasing light of truth in this 
country, like snow before the sun. But, if I had left my 
prescribed course to follow him at his request, we should 
have had nothing but ^^doulos" and ^^ebedhj^ with commen- 
tators and criticisms through the whole four days of the de- 
bate. Besides, I thought that by taking him off his beaten 
track, where other minds had passed before him, he would 
be at a loss what to say in vindication of slavery; and so, 
as you have seen, it turned out : and this was what worried 
him so sadly during the first days of the debate. 

My friend parades with much pomp the names of Clarke^ 
Stuart, etc. etc. etc., and God forbid that I should depreciate 
the holy dead or disparage the memory of the learned Dr. 
Adorn Clarke. He is said to have originated the opinion 
that the serpent who beguiled Eve was a monkey — and 1 re- 
member that Professer Stuart, who was my teacher, when 
some of his class quoted Adam Clarke's Commentary some- 
what frequently, exclaimed, on one occasion, " Come, come I 
leis have no more monkey commentaries here!" 

Professor Stuart is a l^aborious and distinguished Hebrev/ 
scholar and commentator on the scriptures ; in his sphere 
a profound and prayerful ^p^an. I remember his prayers. 



ON SLAVERY, 457 

which were marked with simplicity and power, more clearly 
even than his instructions. But it may not be improper to 
mention of him, that like multitudes of college professors 
and ministers in the free States, he has had, and probably still 
has sons, sharing with slave-holders in the profits of the slave 
system in the South. I will not undertake to say that such 
a circumstance could bias the mind of an interpreter of the 
scriptures, but it is difficult to say how far such a fact might 
go to prepare a tender hearted father to fall in with estab- 
lished, and wide spread error. Certain it is, that some terri- 
bly blinding cause has darkened the intellect of this nation, 
and paralyzed its heart upon the question of justice to our 
enslaved population. 

There is no want of distinguished names to quote against 
the principles and measures of abolitiqnists, or indeed against 
any other principles and measures which may lay upon 
those who embrace them, the necessity of encountering diffi- 
culty or enduring reproach. I remember, when at Ando- 
ver, some agitation arose on the question of slavery, and Dr. 
Woods, the president professor, proposed to the students to 
lay down both the colonization and anti-slavery organiza- 
tion, as a means of promoting harmony in the institution ; 
and that state of suspension continued until I left the insti- 
tution. Thus the spot which was supposed to contain more 
religious intelligence and means of correct judging, on moral 
questions, than any other in the country, claimed the pri- 
vilege of avoiding, so far as possible, all responsibility for, 
and all connection with, any principles, and any measures, 
of any kind whatever, on the subject of slavery. I deter- 
mined, at that time, that if all prospect of reforming the 
church should fail, it would become my duty to forsake the 
church itself ; and all that I have since witnessed, has but 
confirmed me in the correctness of that judgment. 

The most painful duty which has devolved on me during 
this debate, and the one which I should have most gladly 
have shunned, is that of saying something in reply to my 
friend's triumphant reference to opinions put forth by the 



458 DISCUSSION 

\ 
members, at the late meeting of the American Board of Com- 
missioners for Foreign Missions. 

I know that the members of that Board are distinguished 
men, but I know, too, that whenever there is an evil, over- 
bearing and polluting public sentiment, the high places of so- 
ciety are commonly poisoned first. The trade of slavery, 
centers in eastern cities. The watering places, the fashiona- 
ble hotels, the factories, the coast-wise shipping, and ten 
thousand ramifications of interest and intercourse unknown, 
together with the direct personal influence of slave-holders 
themselves, who never suffer slavery to lose a point of ad- 
vantage through any want of assiduity in themselves — all 
these, like so many invisible conductors, discharging at once 
their streams of paralyzing power from the heart of the 
slave system upon public men and public institutions meet- 
incr in our eastern cities ; to stand exposed to such a battery 
■without being more or less stupified and slackened in their 
consciences by the shock, would be a miracle. 

I know that when I was in Andover, the same individual 
(such was the state of sentiment,) would receive more consider- 
ation from the fact of his holding slaves, then if he had none. 
And it must cud will be so until the Christianity of the coun- 
try is separated from, and ranged in opposition to slavery. 
That time, I trust in God, is near and hasteth greatly. I feel 
morally certain that no such document will ever be adopted 
by the American Board again, and no such speeches will 
be uttered at its meetings, as were had at its last ; at least, by 
the same individuals. 

Numbers of the New England clergy are openly and 
strenuously committed to the cause of delivering our poor 
slaves from their utter degradation, and our country from its 
direst curse, and I should not be at all taken by surprise if 
some of those members of the American Board who were 
instrumental in adopting their late Report, which, while it 
condemns slavery, tolerates slave-holding, temporarily, at 
least, in the church of Christ ; should vote for different prin- 



ON SLAVERY. 459 

cipleSj in other ecclesiastical bodies, before the next meetino- 
of the Board. 

My brother is welcome to their authority while it lasts 
him, to sustain his doctrine that slave-holding is not sinful. 
I will remind you, however, that authorities quoted to sup- 
port a controverted principle, of men who are themselves en- 
gaged in the controversy^ and while the controversy is depend- 
ing^ is like owning birds on trees. The next time you need 
them, they may not be there. The American Board cannot 
and will not stand, before the American churches on the 
doctrines of their late Report ; much less upon the sentiments 
uttered by some of its members in their speeches, which Dr, 
Rice, I deeply regret, has been able to quote here in support 
of his doctrine, that " slave-holding is not sin." The Board 
will recede from its ground. I now take up my argument 
tc bring it to a close. 

I was, when I sat down, upon the proposition that, the 
constitution of Christianity is a repeal of the slave code ; 
and its practice an abrogation of slavery, so that the two 
could not have existed in the Christian communities at their 
beginning. 

I had reminded you that the constitution of Christianity, 
that is, the grand, controlling, and characterizing principles 
on which the Christian communitv was built, was nothing 
else than the Jewish constitution, revised, enlarged, and 
adapted to the whole world of mankind. I had. shown you 
that the Jewish constitution, which is contained in the 
Pentateuch and illustrated by the prophets, was not a slave 
code ; but that the Jewish church was both a non-siave- 
holding ; and, by its exertions to keep out the slave-hold- 
ing customs of surrounding nations, which we see in Jer. 
xxxiv, chap., were creeping in among them ; and especially, 
by its harboring runaway slaves, (Deut. xxiii, 15,) the 
Jewish church was an anti-slave-holding body in the strong- 
est sense possible. I had quoted the texts showing that 
the Jewish constitution was anti-slavery as to stealing men; 
the holding of men stolen; and the rendering up of fugitives 



4 GO DISCUSSION 

(Ex. xxi, 16, et al.) and you can all see that the honest 
adoption and faithful carrying out of these three principles 
would make the United States a nation of abolitionists. 
Every town on the Ohio, which harbors fugitive slaves, 
is now regarded by the slave-holders as an abolition town 
of the worst stamp; and the admission of that single princi- 
ple, with the abrogation of one other, which was not in the 
Jewish constitution, would make the constitution of the 
United States an immediate abolition document. 

I had then showed that in this non-slave-holding, anti-slave- 
holding Jewish church constitution, Christ and the apostles 
laid the foundation of Christianity, i. e. lie founded the 
Christian constitution upon Moses and the prophets, with 
certain alterations and additions by Christ. That so Peter 
preached on the day of Pentecost, when he was founding 
the Christian Church. " The promise is unto you and your 
children,^'* that is, Christianity is made out of the same 
promises which the Jews' religion was made of 

/ was then showing what alterations Christianity made 
in the constitution of Judaism, 

And first, That, it abrogated the Jewish distiiiction of 
male and female. Whereas the Jewish woman was bought 
by her husband, and was his menial, could be divorced at 
will for hatred ; had no name in the rolls of the church, nor 
any part in the ceremonies of religion, or seat in the syna- 
gogue ; that all this degrading serfdom of woman was 
abolished by Christianity out of the Jewish constitution, so 
that " in Christj^ there was " neither male nor fcmaleJ*^ 
Gal. iii, 28, and Col. iii, 11. 

2. In the second place, I observe that, Christ's constitu- 
tion destroyed the distinction between Jew and Greek, or 
generally, that between Jew and gentile or barbarian. 

In the ancient tabernacle worship, there was an outer 
court for the gentiles, who were regarded as imclean. 
They were called " dogs," in comparison of Jews : and in 
the last times of the nation, all Jerusalem was set on up- 



ON SLAVEr.Y. 461 

roar, because they said that Paul " had brought Greeks into 
the teiwple and 'polluted that holy place.^^ Acts xxi, 28. 

This distinction, Christianity swept away. It taught, 
that the " middle wall of partition was broken down," which 
shut off the o;entiles from the conofreo-ation of the Lord — 
that the Jewish branches were broken from the olive tree, 
and Jew and gentile grafted in, as Christians^ upon the same 
stock. In Christianity, every man held the same relation 
to every other man, and to God, as a Jew held to every 
other Jew, and to God. The promises made to Abraham 
were opened to all, in the whole world, who would embrace 
them ; and thus all came into the Christian community on 
the summit-level of Christian brotherhood and equality. — 
Even Dr. Rice, in this debate, admits that one Jew could not 
hold another Jew as a perpetual slave. And as "in Christ" 
men were exalted upon the Jewish platform of rights, it is 
plain, that, under the constitution of Christianity, one man 
could not hold another man as his slave. 

3. The third alteration of Judaism by Christianity was 
this — that it annihilated the distinction between "bond and 
FREE." There was a bond service in the Jewish code; but 
'•In Christ there is neither bond nor free." (Gal. iii, 28, and 
Col. iii, 11.) Moses legislated for a peculiar people, who 
were on all sides pressed upon by a world of barbarism and 
idolatry, and he had, on the one side, to preserve a disci- 
pline so liberal that families should not be changed into 
slave-prisons, work-houses, and jails — and yet, on the other 
hand, the discipline must be stringent enough to prevent 
members of families running back and forth, to and from 
the pollution and filth of the worship and life of idolaters. 
This was the reason and principle, the object and end of the 
bond service which was a part of the Jewish constitution; 
The whole world was then both pagan and slave-holding. — 
Now^ the world is learning to respect human rights, and 
many nations have fully abolished slavery; and hence all 
the reason on which Hebrew bond service was founded is 
expired. Then, the strong man v^/as the law — the whip and 



462 DISCUSSION 

the chain were the insignia of office, and force the only im- 
pulse to obedience to authority in the religions and govern- 
ments of all but Jews. Yet now, when the era of truth and 
moral power is come, and the empire of force is passing 
away, the gentleman's doctrine carries us back to the pagan 
maxims of Moses' day, and to the pagan slavery which 
Moses abolished and legislated out of Judea. When we go 
back to Moses, we find a world of absolute despotism, and 
Judea a free spot in its centre. And while Moses preserved 
as much freedom in her constitution as would be consistent 
with national preservation, he allowed a system of bond 
service — a service in which Zi/c, property^ and civil liberty 
should be protected — while a wholesome restraint was 
thrown upon personal liberty for a term of years, in order 
to preserve the order and discipline necessary to the national 
preservation of the chosen people of God amidst the idola- 
trous and tyrannous and barbarous tribes around them. 

That bond service was a system for drawing men out of 
heathen slavery into the freedom of the children of God. 
All the servants procured from the heathen had to become 
Jews, by circumcision, within one year, or they must be 
sent back. When circumcised, they were reckoned among 
the Hebrews, and of course the law of the Hebrews applied 
to them, which was, that they should serve their masters for 
six years, and then go free, except the ear-bored servants, who 
were free also at the jubilee. It was a missionary mill, to 
manufacture heathen into the children of God. 

But, under the Christian constitution, even this modified 
bond-service was done aivay^ and '•• there is neither bond nor 
free" in Christ Jesus! The constitution of Christianity en- 
tirely and forever annihilates slavery, wherever and as soon 
as it touches it. There is no need of a special denunciation 
of slavery, and a separate statute of abolition. In Massa- 
chusetts, the common law and constitution abolished it. In 
Ohio, the ordinance of 1787 excluded it, before there were 
white people here to hold slaves, and the Indians never did. 
In Massachusetts, in Vermont, here in Ohio, we have no 



ON SLAVERY. 463 

State statute forbidding to hold slaves. Nor would it do any 
good if there was ; for those who will violate a constitution, 
will break a statute. So, in Christianity, whose constitution 
was, and, loheii enforced^ will again be, an immediate abro- 
gation of slavery. 

11. My second main proposition on the New Testament^ 
isj that the character of the first Christians was a complete 
guaranty against slave-holding in the church. 

Paul, (in 1 Cor. i, 26,) says, "For ye see your calling, 
brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not 
many mighty, not many noble, are called." This shows what 
kind of people the first Christian churches were made of? 
They were a poor despised set of abolitionists who were every- 
where accused of "uprooting society" to get rid of its evils, and 
" turning the world upside doiun " to correct its errors and re- 
form its abuses ; and the treatment experienced by Christ and 
the apostles has been, in a measure, dealt out to them. If 
we had been holier men, we should have suffered more. 

Now we all know, without stopping to examine, kov/ f^uch 
a church must have treated slave-holding. Take only -he 
fact of their condition in life, and the principles and reason- 
ings inseparable from it. How would they look on some 
wealthy Virginia or Alabama slave-holder coming into tiie 
church with his fifty slaves, wishing to hold them as his 
property, while he recognized them as his equal brethren in 
Christ in a church where none of the members said that 
aught he possessed was his own, but they had all things in 
Common ! ! If the Christian constitution was enforced, that, 
as we have seen, annihilated slavery; and if it was not enforc- 
ed, human nature itself would shut such men as our slave- 
holding Presbyterians in the South from the churches found- 
ed by the apostles of Christ. 

Why, I am told, that some of the aristocratic members in 
this city, tired of the democratic tendencies in the Metho- 
dist Episcopal church, are about to form here a "Methodist 
Episcopal Church South." If they do, when they erect their 
"building I suggest that this scripture be cut in stone over 



464 DISCUSSION 

the door, as containing the trinity of their worship : '• The 
lust of the fleshy the lust of the eycs^ ami the pride of life." 
1 John ii, 16. 

But, when we see the slave-holders, and those who have 
their spirit, separating themselves, to escape disturbance, 
from the free principles which are struggling for life in the 
Methodist Episcopal church, it is easy to see how^ a slave- 
holder would have fared if he had come into one of the 
apostolic churches, made up of a set of poor, pious Chris- 
tians, and wishing to hold fifty or more of them as slaves, 
subject to his sole will. No, the character and condition of 
the members of the first Christian churches, was a sufficient 
fifuaranty against the admission of slave-holders. 

III. But again. The history of the first church organiza- 
tion shows that it was an anti-slavery organization. Read the 
fourth chapter of Acts, vs. 31, 37. "And when they had 
prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled 
together, and they ^vcre all filled wdth the Holy Ghost, 
and they spake the word of God with boldness, Ahd the 
multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one 
soul : neither said any of them that aught of the things 
WPiicH he possessed was his own : but they had all ihi?igs in 
commonP 

This was at Pentecost, where three thousand souls were 
converted to Christianity, and the Christian institution set 
up. Now, what becomes of a man's slaves, in such a 
church? Would the slave-holder sell his slaves, and take 
the price and divide it among the Christians, his slaves 
among the number 1 Or, would he cut them up, as the 
man of Mount Ephraim did his concubine, and give each 
brother and sister a piece? Or, would he simply recognize 
his slaves as men and women, his equals in Christ. Tliere 
was no slavePwY in such a church as that ! But again, verse 
33d, " and with great power gave the apostles witness of the 
resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon 
them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked : 
for as many as were j^osscssors of laiuls or houses sold them^ 



ON SLAVERY. 465 

and brought the 'prices of the the things that were soldj and 
laid them doivn at the apostle^ s feet ; and distribution was 
made unto every man according as lie had need." What, 
are we to say, "that they gave up their lands and houses, 
but kept their slaves?" What did they want with slaves, 
when their houses and lands were sold. Tender stomachs 
indeed ; must they have had to give up lands for religion, 
and keep persons as property ! True, there were no slaves 
in Judea ; but the Pentecost converts were from all parts of the 
world, and there may have been slave-holders among them. 

Now, remember, that this was the first founding of the 
Christian church, and, of course, a model for the rest. And 
the Holy Ghost which wTought these effects in the Pente- 
cost converts, came afterwards on the gentiles, the same 
as on the Jews at the beginning of the Christian commu- 
nity P — Acts, xi, 15. Thus, the history of the first Chris- 
tian organization perfectly and forever stultifies the idea, so 
gravely put forth by learned men, that chattelizing human 
beings found fellowship in the apostolic church ! 

IV. My last proposition is, that the enforcement of disci- 
PLtKE in the first Christian churchy always and everywhere,, 
must have annihilated slavery. 

When Christianity was set up in free Judea, it was estab- 
lished in a non-slave-holding country, by anti-slavery Jews, 
converted to a freer system of religion than Judaism itself. 
Of course the world did not need to be told that theirs was 
not to be a slave-holding church. But when they went out- 
side of Judea to found churches, they encountered slavery j 
and •• doulos," as our word " servant," doubtless, in s«]ave 
States, and in the lips of slave-holders meant, slave. Though 
in the New Testament, it is not as my brother said, but it 
takes •' Doulos hupo zugoii^ to make a slave. Doulos alone 
no more means slave, than " bird^^^ alone means "ozt"/." 

But admitting, as I do, that the gospel was planted amid 
slaves. The question is, when it went to Ephesus, what did the 
Christian discipline do to slo.very there? Take a living case. 
Suppose a young free man had married a slave girl 
converted to Christianity, with her master, and 



466 DISCUSSION 

the church. This case is not uncommon in our own coun- 
try, where a free colored man has a slave wife, and they, 
with the master, profess religion. But such cases must have 
been still more frequent where there was no difference of 
complexion. Now suppose this pious master wishes to re- 
move to Colosse, or somewhere else ; as Aquila went with 
Paul, and he wishes his slave girl, now married, to go with 
him. Her husband cannot pay for her. The master does 
not wish to sell her if he could ; and the husband refuses to 
let her go. The case comes before the church on complaint 
of the owner, the question being ivhich shall have the young 
woman — the slave-holder^ or the hushaiul 1 The trial comes 
up before the brethren in the place of Christian worship in 
Ephesus. Now how would this work in Charleston, South 
Carolina ? The house of course would be thronged to suffo- 
cation, windows, doors and all, with slave-holders, and other 
people, anxious to hear the decision. The slave-holder 
rises, opens Dr. Rice^s lectures^ if not familiar with the Bible, 
and he finds quoted, Ephesians vi, 5. '•Servants be obedient 
to them that arc your masters according to theJleshP "Now 
brethren,' continues he, " I claim this girl as my servant — 
She is my slave : and our founder and apostle Paul, says, 
in his letter to this church, ' Servants be obedient to your 
masters^ I therefore command her obedience to me who 
am her master. I am called of God to remove hence, and 
she m.ust go v/ith me." 

After the slave-holder (who generally has the first hear- 
ing with our northern divines) has got through his argument ; 
the young husband comes meekly forward with the Bible 
under his arm, which opens at Matth. xix, 5, 6, and reads 
the words of our Lord : " For this cause shall a man leave 
Jather and mother and cleave unto his loife^ and they twain 
shall become one flesh. Wherefore they are 7io more twaiuj 
but onejlesh. What therefore God has .toined together, 
LET NO MAN PUT ASUNDER." Brethren, this young w^oman 
is my wife : and having thus spoken, sits down incapable of 
uttering more. 

Which now, by the law of the church, would gQi that 



ON SLAVERY. 467 

young- woman ? If you say the husband, and surely he will, 
unless you emancipate the church from the law of Christ, 
every slave-holder in that audience would say : — " Let 's clear 
out! This is an abolition concern: This is no place for us 
and our slaves : We can never keep them with such exam- 
ples before them. Indeed the whole fraternity are a gang* 
of incendaries." So, calling out their slaves, they would go 
home hatching schemes of persecution against the Christians. 

Take another case, of parent and child. The slave-holder 
claims the child of a fellow Christian, as his property, and 
determines to take it away. The parent says that the law 
of God, '-'•Parents^ brmg iip your children in the nurture and 
admonition of the hord^^ gives the parent control of the 
child : and the claims of parent and owner conflict. This 
case must follow the other, and the parent get his child. 
Take still another case, which shows how the discipline of 
the first churches applies to the mere business aspects and 
relations of slavery. 

A man came to my house, who for years hired the moth- 
er of his children of her owner, he being a free man, and 
she a slave. The husband I think had paid fifty dollars per 
year, for the hire of his own wife, to the wife's master. 

Now suppose these parties had joined the church at Co- 
losse, and the husband had refused longer to pay his Chris- 
tian brother fifty dollars per year, for the privilege of hav- 
ing his own wife suckle and tend her own babes : and the 
case comes before the church upon this issue. Would the 
church command the husband still to pay for the use of his 
wife, fifty dollars per year, to his equal Christian brother? 
Or would they take up the epistle written them by Paul, and 
under the precept, *' masters give unto your servants that 
which is just and equal'^ Col. iv, 1 ; require the master to 
pay back all the hire which he had received of the husband, 
with reasonable dues for the woman's service before she was 
married? And would not one such decision so ahoUtiordze 
the church in public estimation, that not a slave-holder would 
join it till he was willing to give up his slaves ? 



468 DISCUSSION 

I put all tliese cases to Dr. Stowe, who I regret on his ac- 
count to say, has uttered sentiments which brother Rice can 
quote in support of his doctrine, that the apostolic churches 
fellowsliipped slave-holding : and Dr. Stowe unhesitatingly de- 
clared, that in every such case, the claims of slave-holders 
were extinguished by the law of the church (which, was 
the law of Christ) in favor of husband and parent. 

How then do he and others reach the conclusion, totally 
inconsistent with this admission, that slave-holding was ad- 
mitted to fellowship in the apostolic churches? 

Why, in this way: — They say that the legal relation^ as 
created by the civil law, still vested in slave-owners, after 
they became members of the Christian churches ; and that 
they were not required to abjure this relation before they 
were received into the church. Supposing this true, it 
does not alter the case. For, as the cases cited above show, 
they could not retain their slaves by the law of Christianity ; 
and saying that the rights of slave-owners still remained in 
them by the civil law ; is subjecting the Christian church to 
the heathen State. But if the law of Christ was superior 
to that civil law which gave them their slave-holding rights, 
then they ceased to be slave-holders when they joined the 
church. 

More than this : The first Christian who should have 
gone to a civil court to prosecute his claim to the body of 
his brother or sister as his slave, would have had an excom- 
munication launched after him, under the injunction of the 
apostle, as a most aggravated case of "brother going to law 
with brother, and that before unbelievers." Those civil 
courts were among the things which Christians came out of, 
when they left the world to follow Christ. They could not 
prosecute claims there without practising idolatry. Justice 
was administered by these in the name of Jupiter, and the em- 
peror, and attended with pagan rites. The witness took a 
flint, and, jerking it from his hand, said — '■'-So let Jupiter 
thrust 7)ie from among the goud^ if 1 deceive in this cascP 
Thai a Christia'i could not have established his claim to a 



ON SLAVEK.Y. 469 

slave, ill the civil courts, without subjecting- the church to 
the State — violating ihe apostle's injunction — and practising 
idolatry. 

Thus, I have proved, that slave-holding was not allowed 
in the New Testament church : — 1. By the constitutiori of 
Christianity; 2. The character of the men:ibers; 3 By the 
history of the foundation of the first Christian community ; 
and, 4. By the discipline of the church. 

And now — Gcnllemeyi and fellow-citizens — with many and 
sincere thanks for your long and patient attention, during 
this debate, (having no time to recapitulate,) I bid you an 
affectionate farewell. And I pray God, that when you shall 
have well considered the arguments here presented, and 
when you shall read them in the book which is to be pub- 
lished, you may be led by His Spirit to '-Ixemember them thai 
are in bonds as bound with them" — so that when you shall 
appear before the final bar you may yourselves hear v/ith 
joy the welcome of the judge: not (according to the shock- 
ing interpretation of my brother) of " well done, thou good 
and faithful slave''— hut that w^elcome, fit for Christ's lips to 
utter, and saved men to hear, " Well done, good and faith- 
ful SERVANT — enter thou into the joy of thy Lord." 

For me, I know that when a few days are come, a thou- 
sand miles shall stretch between your dwellings and mine— 
and when, hereafter, this toil-worn frame shall be sinking to 
its last earthly rest, it shall please my failing memory to 
remember, that my last effort among you was in vindication 
of the oppressed. Happy, if, when my toils are over, I can 
raise my dying head, like Wolf upon the Heights of Abra- 
ham, and hear the gathering shout of my countrymen, 
that the enemies of freedom and God's truth are routed, 
and the slave is free ; and when my v,'eary head shall at 
last lie low amid the wild flowers of yonder prairie, my 
future home, it shall content me well, if they shed their 
dewey honors above the grave of one who, having humbly 
striven in all things to follow his Lord, like Him, also, has 
been faithful to His poor. [^Timc expired. 



470 DISCUSSION 

[MR. rice's sixteenth SPEECH.] 

Gentlemen Moderators^ and Fellow-Citizens: 

I do not by any means call in question the sincerity of the 
gentleman in his abolition sentiments ; and 1 can sympathise 
with him in his zeal for a cause which he imagines to be the 
most important of all others. But whilst I give him due 
credit for his sincerity, I cannot forget, that his declamation 
and exhortation are not argument. 

I called on my friend to prove the truth of his assertion, 
that bondmen purchased by the Jews from the heathen, could 
hold property. In reply he has not once quoted the Bible, 
but has referred me to the Roman Catholic professor Jahn— 
Yet Jahn does no where say, either that they went out of ser- 
vitude at the end of six years, nor that they held property. He 
says only that they were numbered among the people of Is- 
rael. So they were, as to all church privileges. They were 
so ecclesiastically. But this they could be, and neither hold 
property nor be free. I have seen Jahn's book to which Mr. 
B. refers ; and he expressly says the Jews had a right to buy 
bond-servants from the heathen. 

I cannot but remark here, that one of the most unpleasant 
features of modern abolitionism, is its utter recklessness in rela- 
tion to the characters of even the most eminent, and honored, 
and useful servants of Jesus Christ. I cannot hear charges 
the most injurious, so frequently recurring, as we have heard 
them from the gentleman, without being constrained to think, 
that there must be something in abolitionism itself, which 
produces in its advocates a self-sufficient^ conceited spirit^ that 
leads them to regard themselves as wiser and better than all 
other men. 

Dr. Adam Clarke has been lauded by the gentleman, and 
quoted as authority : but the moment I shew that he con- 
firms my exposition of the Old Testament on the subject of 
slavery, he is ridiculed as a " monkey commentator." Such 
a man and such a scholar as Professor Stuart, of An- 
dover, is not to be trusted in his exposition of the scriptures, 



ON SLAVERY. 471 

we are told, because some of the young men whom he taught, 
are settled in the southern States ! 

[Mr. Blanchard rose to explain. I said he had sons, 
(not students,) in slave-holding families.] 

Very well : and because he has sons settled at the South 
in slave-holding families, he can be so influenced, so war- 
ped in judgment by that circumstance, that he has grossly 
perverted the Word of God, and on his responsibility as a 
biblical expositor, has said, that it is *' im'possible to doubt" 
that the Bible teaches a certain doctrine, which is most de- 
testable ! Is it not truly strange that a wise and good man, 
whose reputation is such as that of Prof Stuart, is to be con- 
demned, as blindly, or perversely teaching the most abomina- 
ble and cruel doctrines, on grounds so trivial — and this too, 
by a professed minister of the gospel ! 

In the same manner, the American Board is to be treated. 
They sometimes sit at one of our watering places, where 
they see the face of a slave-holder ; and behold ! they never 
can see the truth again ! 

The eminent learning of many of them, their character 
for vital piety, and for wisdom and prudence, cannot shield 
them from the charge of sinister motives, of sacrificing the 
truth to the influence of slavery ! Slave-holders were seen 
by them at the watering-places ; and therefore they are blind- 
ed ! And the gentleman has even ventured to denounce one 
of those ministers as "an ecclesiastical Talleyrand!" I had 
learned from an inspired apostle, that the character of min- 
isters of the gospel, was to be respected, and that no charge 
was to be received against them, unless sustained by at least 
two witnesses ; but abolitionism practices according to a dif- 
ferent rule. 

The Methodist church, even in the North, I have said, 
has never made slave-holding a bar to Christian fellowship. 
This statement is true. It is admitted, that the Methodists 
forbid trafficking in slaves ; and so do I condemn it. 

The gentleman, by way of proving that the Jews had 
no slaveSj refers us to the law of Moses against man-steal- 



472 DISCUSSION. 

ing-. But who denies that stealing men was made a capi- 
tal offence under the Jewish law? No man, surely, who 
reads his Bible ; but that law never forbade the purchase of 
a bond-servant from a heathen master. On the contrary, as 
I have proved, the law gave express permission to do so ; 
and the reason probably was, that it effected a favorable change 
in the man's condition, and brought him under the influence 
of that religion which might make him happy on earth and 
in heaven. 

Mr. Blanchard attempts to prove, that there were no slave- 
holders in the Christian church, because in the constitution 
of Christianity " there is neither male nor female, neither 
barbarian, Scythian bond or free." And, strangel}'- enough, 
the gentleman seems to understand this language literally! just 
as if it would not prove as conclusively, that there were no/> 
malcs in the early church, as that there were no slaves there ! 
Who denies (what that text imports) that in the privileges 
of the Christian church and in the blessed hopes of the gos- 
pel, there are no distinctions — that at the table of the Lord 
the richest man takes his seat by the poorest of the poor? 
But a king is a king still, though his meanest subject is on 
a par with himself in the things of religion. The equality 
of all men on the great platform of Christian privilege and 
hope, does not prevent great inequalities in their civil condi- 
tion. I go for both — for defending their equality in Chris- 
tian privileges, whilst I would not interfere with the order of 
society in things touching this life. The equality of a .Tew 
and his slave in their right to the passover, did in no wise 
destroy their relation to each other as master and slave. 

The gentleman has repeatedly asserted the sinfulness of 
slave-holding in itself, on the ground, that the master takes 
the labor of the slave luithout wages. Now, on this subject, 
what says God's law? That law, as I have proved, ex- 
pressly required that the wages of the hired servant (saUr) 
should be promptly paid; but it says not a word about the 
wages of the bond-servant (cved) bought from the heathen. 
How shall we account for this fact ? The reason is obvious, 



ON SLAVERY. 



473 



if the doctrine for which I contend is true ; but the thing is 
wholly unaccountable, if Mr. B.'s principles are correct. 
The law did not require wages to be paid to the bond-serv- 
ant, because the master had already paid for his labor what, 
under the circumstances, it was worth, and because the mas- 
ter was bound to provide his slave food and raiment, and 
shelter, in sickness and health, until death. This support 
was the servant's wages — quite as much, by the way, as 
most men obtain for their labor. 

Mr. B. proves, that the primitive Christians were not slave- 
holders, from the fact that they were generally poor people, 
in the lower walks of life. Admit the truth of the state- 
ment; does it follow that the apostles excluded slave-holders, 
as such, from their churches ? Surely the premises are at a 
great distance from the conclusion. 

But he tells us, that the first converts at Jerusalem sold 
their houses and lands, and had all things in common ; and 
he asks, what became of their slaves? I answer — 1. He 
has himself informed us, that the Jews, after the Babylonish 
captivity, had no slaves. If his statement is true, the ques- 
tion is answered. 2. But Paul and Peter teach us, as plain- 
ly as language can teach, that there were in many of the 
churches, as at Ephesus and Colosse, both masters and 
slaves ; and they give such directions to both, as cannot ap- 
ply to employers and hired-servants. They exhort the 
slaves to obey their own masters " with fear and trembling," 
not only the "good and gentle," but also the froward. 3. 
If there had been slave-holders amongst those converts, they 
certainly would not have sold their slaves for money for the 
church. Any Christian would have cheerfully given up 
his other possessions for the general interest, but not the ser- 
vants of his family, whose happiness he is solemnly 
bound to regard, and whom God requires him to instruct 
in the things pertaining to their salvation. Doubtless every 
Christian master would, if he consistently could, liberate his 
slaves ; but certain it is, that the servants of the family are 
amongst the last of a pious m.aster's possessions with which, 



474 DISCUSSION 

Avhen in difficult circumstancesj he would part. The si- 
lence of the inspired record concerning slaves, therefore, af- 
fords no evidence that slave-holders were not received into 
the churches organized by the apostles. , 

The gentleman asserts, that the word doulos does not 
mean slave. This is merely assertion; but we call for evi- 
de/iice. I called upon him to tell us what word in the 
Greek language does mean slave, if this word does not. 
He has not given us the information. A similar question 
was asked concerning the Hebrew eved ; but the gentle- 
man could find no other word signifying slave. Indeed he 
told us, virtually, that there is no word either in the He- 
brew or Greek language, which does definitely signify 
slave ! a statement contradicted by every Greek Lexicon, 
by classic usage, by Bible usage, and by all Greek and 
Hebrew scholars. Stuart, McNight, Barnes, and a host of 
others, commentators, critics and theologians, say unhesi- 
tatingly, that the literal and proper meaning of doulos., is 
slave. 

But Mr. B. presents a supposed case which he regards as 
entirely conclusive. " Suppose," says he, " a church 
member had come to one of those churches and claimed as 
his servant a man who had run from him, and had become 
pious and had married in the place. Which relation 
would the church regard, the conjugal or the property 
relation?" How this supposed case proves, that there were 
no slave-holders in the apostolic churches, I know not. It 
is not difhcult, however, to answer the question. The 
church, so far as it had authority, would, of course, sacredly 
regard the marriage relation, and so would every pious 
master. It would not be difficult, however, if the master 
were not pious, to satisfy him, if he were a reasonable man, 
by paying him what liis slave was worth. Precisely in 
this way did primitive Christians liberate the slaves of men, 
when they liberated them at all. Instead of combining to 
run them off from their masters, as do many modern 
abolitionists, they united to purchase them. Our abolition- 



ON SLAVERY. 475 

ists, however, are quite too conscientious to imitate their 
examj)le ! 

Having now answered so much of the gentleman's speech 
as required notice, I proceed very briefly to recapitulate, that 
the audience may have distinctly before them the ground 
over which I have travelled. 

The question before us, as 1 have repeatedly stated, is not, 
whether it is wrong to force a free man into slavery ; nor 
whether all the particular laws by which, at different times 
and in different countries, it has been regulated, are just and 
righteous ; nor whether it is right or wrong for a man to treat 
his slaves cruelly, to separate husbands and wives, &;c.: nor 
whether a man may rightly regard and treat his slaves as 
mere chattels personal, not as rational, accountable, immor- 
tal beings ; nor whether a great amount of sin is often actu- 
ally committed in this relation ; nor whether slavery, as a 
system, is an evil, the removal of which should be sought by 
all proper means ; nor whether it is the true policy, and the 
duty of the several slave States to abolish slavery immedi- 
ately or gradually ; nor whether " the system of American 
slavery," or any other system, is right, but simply whether 
the relation^ divested of all abuses, is in itself sinful. 

To prove, that slave-holding is not in itself sinful, but that 
there have been, and may be circumstances justifying it, I 
have advanced the following arguments : 

1. The great principles of the moral law are written on 
the human heart ; and, when presented, they do commend 
tb.emselves to the understandings and. consciences of men. 
The truth of this proposition is universally admitted. Now 
it is a notorious fact, that the doctrine that slave-holding is 
in itself sinful, has not commended itself to the understand- 
ings and consciences of even the great body of the wise, and 
the good. Therefore it is not true. The feeble effort made 
by the gentleman to reply to this argument only proves it 
unanswerable. 

2. The history of the church and of the world cannot 
furnish one instance of a man or a society of men heretical 



476 DISCUSSION 

on one fundamental principle of morality, or article of Chris- 
tian faith, and yet sound on all others. But it is admitted, 
that the ministers and churches in the slave-holding States 
are as orthodox on all the principles of morality and doc] 
trines of Christianity, as blameless in their lives, as be- 
nevolent, and in all respects, except the matter of slavery, 
as exemplary Christians as any in the world. If, then, the 
doctrine of abolitionism is true, we have presented before us 
two spectacles, such as the world never before saw, viz: 1 . 
The great body of eminendy wise and good men pronouncing 
one of the very grossest violations of the moral law, such 
as kidnapping, man stealing and robbery, not in itself sinful. 
2. A large number of Christians and Christian churches 
rotten on one fundamental point of morality, and perfectly 
sound and conscientious on all others ! The gentleman at- 
tempted to answer this argument by giving the Pharisees as 
an instance of men sound on all points of faith and morality, 
except one ! But this he soon abandoned. Then he re- 
ferred us to John Newton, just at the time when his mind 
was emerging from the midnight gloom of ignorance and 
deep depravity ! Such are his only answers ! 

3. It is a fact, admitted even by the gentleman himself, 
that there are Christian slave-holders, and Christian churches, 
whose members are involved in slave-holding, accepted and 
blessed of God, often enjoying seasons of the outpouring of 
the Holy Spirit. And it is a fact, that many of the best 
ministers in the free States, if converted at all, were con- 
verted in those churches, in answer to the prayers of those 
Christians. Nay, it is a fact, that all, or nearly all, our 
older churches were organized in States where slavery then 
existed, and admitted slave-holders to their communion. 
Now one of two things is true, viz.: either God hears the 
prayers and blesses the labors of the most scandalous sin- 
ners, or abolitionism is not true. The gentleman attempted 
to evade the force of this argument, by saying — 1. That 
those revivals are granted in answer to the prayers of those 
who are not actually slave-holders. But the reply is obv|- 



ON SLAVERY. 477 

ous — that those who countenance slave-holding- Christians 

and hold fellowship with them, are no better than they. 

2. But he told us, those revivals were granted in answer to 
the prayers of goodly men who were opposed to slavery, 
such as David Rice, of Kentucky. But the reply is no less 
obvious — that he was not an abolitionist ; and if he had 
been, the Bible affords not an instance in which God has, 
for the sake of the pious dead, poured out spiritual blessings 
upon professors of religion who were gross sinners, and con- 
tinued in their sin. All seasons of revival recorded in the 
Bible, were seasons of general reformation, 

4. The faith of the abolitionists induces them to pursue a 
course widely different from that pursued by the apostles of 
Christ, in regard to prevailing sins, particularly in regard to 
slavery. Abolitionists stand at a distance, and denounce and 
villify all slave-holders ; the apostles never did so. On the 
contrary, they preached the gospel both to masters and 
slaves, enjoining on each the faithful discharge of their re- 
spective duties. Abolitionists seek to render the slaves dis- 
contented, and to induce them to leave the service of their 
masters ; the apostles pursued an opposite course. In a 
word — the apostles, though assailed with many odious 
charges, were never represented as abolitionists, or as seeking 
to interfere with the relation of master and slave. They, in 
their epistles and discourses, so far as they are recorded in 
the Bible, never denounced the relation itself as sinful. 
They sought to reform men, not by abusing and denouncing 
them in papers, pamphlets and public meetings, but by 
going amongst them, and kindly reasoning with them. 
The course of the abolitionists is precisely opposite to this. 
Now if it be true, as the apostle James teaches, that men 
show their faith hy their icorks — it follows, that, since the 
w^orks of abolitionists are widely different from those of the 
apostles, and opposed to them, their faith is equally different 
from the faith of the apostles. 

5. The tendency and necessary effects of abolitionism 
prove it false. What are its tendency and its effects ? They 



478 DISCUSSION 

are the following . — 1. To irritate slave-holders to the highest 
degree, and thus to rivet the chains on the slave, and make his 
condition far worse than it would be ; 2. To take from slave- 
holders the preached gospel, the only influence by which 
they ever will be induced to liberate their slaves. The 
abolitionists will not go and preach the gospel to them. If 
they hear it, therefore, they must hear it from the mouths 
of ministers w-ho are denounced and calumniated by aboli- 
tionists. 3. The tendency of abolitionism is to take from the 
slaves, as well as their masters, the glorious gospel, which only 
can elevate their character, make them happy even in bond- 
age, and make them eternally free and happy in heaven. The 
abolitionists will not go and preach the gospel to them. If 
they ever hear it, then, they must hear it from ministers 
denounced and villified by these pretended reformers. For 
•whom, I again ask, will the millions of Christian slaves 
before the throne of God, thank the Judge on the great 
day — for the ministers who went and preached to them the 
word of life in their bonds ; or for those who, at a safe dis- 
tance, abused and calumniated their masters? If such is 
the tendency of abolitionism, (and facts already stated prove 
that it is,) and if we are to judge of the principles of men 
by their fruits^ what shall we think of it 1 

6. The golden rule — "whatsoever ye would that men 
should do to you, do ye even so to them" — as I have said, 
requires us to improve the condition of all our fellow-men, 
so far as w^e can do so, \vithout disregarding other para- 
mount duties. But inasmuch as, in a multitude of instances, 
it is impossible for masters to liberate their slaves, w'ithout 
ncCTlectinof paramount duties — and in other instances the 
only way in which they can consistently improve the condi- 
tion of a slave, is to buy him and hold him as a slave — it is 
clear that the golden rule does not prove slave-holding in 
itself sinful, does not require masters to liberate their slaves 
without regard to circumstances, but in some instances, 
makes men slave-holders. 

7. The truth is self-evident, that God never did, and never 



ON SLAVERY. 479 

could give any man permission to do that which is in itself 
sinful, or to form a sinful relation. But it is a fact, clearly 
proved by the express language of the Old Testament, that 
He not only recognized the relation of master and slave a;^ 
lawful amongst the patriarchs, but did give express permis- 
sion to the Jews to buy bondmen and bondmaids fromi the 
gentiles, and from strangers dwelling am.ongst them. There- 
fore, slave-holding is not in itself sinful. Amongst the Jews, 
as I proved, there were several classes of servants — as hired 
servants, whose wages were to be regularly paid ; Jews who 
had becnme poor, and sold themselves for six years, who 
were to be treated as hired servants ; the bondmen and bond- 
maids, owned by the patriarchs, or bought by the Jews, from 
the heathen, who were slaves during life. 

To this last class I directed your attention particularly. 
That they were slaves, I proved by several arguments: 1. They 
were bought with money. 2. They were the "possession" 
of their masters. The word 'possession^ is one of the strongest 
words in the Hebrew language, to denote that which really 
belongs to a man. 3. They descended as an inheritance to 
the children of the master, just as did ordinary possessions. 

4. The master claimed their labor, and could enforce their 
obedience by chastisement ; and the reason why, if a ser- 
vant died, after a day or two, when he had been chastised, 
the master was not to be punished, was — that he was his money. 

5. The word evccl^ translated bondman^ is the proper Hebrew 
word to signify slavc^ and stands in contrast with sakir^ the 
hired servant. The gentleman himself has not been able 
to find any other word in the Hebrew^ language, which does 
signify slave. The conclusion is inevitable, that God did give 
express permission to the Jews to buy and hold slaves ; and so 
is the language of the Bible understood by all respectable 
commentators, critics and theologians. Consequently, one 
of two things is true, viz: either God gave the Jews ex- 
press permission to commit sin, or slavc'-holding is not -in 
itself sinful. 

8. I have proved, as I thmk, the fact that the apostles 



480 DISCUSSION 

of Christ did receive slave-holders into the churches organ- 
ized by them. That they did so, I proved by several argu- 
ments, viz: 1. The word kurios, translated master , signifies 
an owner, master, or — and as applied to designate the rela- 
tion between master and servant, signifies a slave-holder. 
2. The word despotes, also translated master, is admitted to 
mean properly a holder of slaves ; and w^e read of believing 
despotai, {m-dsteis,) "faithful and beloved, partakers of the 
benefit," of "good and gentle" despoiai. 3. The word doulos, 
translated servant, means literally and properly, a slave. 
This is proved — 1st, by the lexicons, which uniformly so 
define it; 2d, by classic usage — the Greek writers themselves 
so used it ; 3d, by Bible usage — the word dovios being there 
constantly used in contrast with the word eleutJieros — free. 
4. Exhortations are addressed by the apostles to masters 
and servants, which are not applicable to employers and 
hired servants, but are precisely applicable to masters and 
slaves. 

5. I have not asked you to depend upon my assertions, 
touching these important points, but have referred you to a 
number of the best commentators, critics, and theologians, 
such as Poole, Scott, Henry, Home, Bush, Barnes, Stuart, 
McNight, Doddridge, and others; and I have challenged the 
gentleman to produce one respectable commentator, critic, or 
theologian, who agrees with him in his views of the scrip- 
tures quoted, or who gives a different exposition of them, from 
that which I have given. He has not done it, because he 
cannot. 

You have heard his replies, so far as he has attempted to 
reply to these arguments; and you have observed how care- 
fully he, from the very commencement of this debate, shun- 
ned the Bible, as if deeply conscious that it would condemn 
the principles he was advocating. He felt that an apology 
to the audience for pursuing such a course, was necessary; 
gnd he tells you, he avoided the Bible, because he knew, if 
hfi nyent into a scriptural argument, we should be troubled 
with eved and /^ow/os, lexicons, commentators and critics; 



ON SLAVERY. 481 

and he very much feared I would confuse the minds of the 
people in this way ! ! ! 

[Mr. Blanchard rose to explain. I said I did so be- 
cause if you took the brother from the slaveholders' texts 
in the Bible, you put him out of his track.] 

The gentleman is right. It is true, that I cannot discuss 
great moral and religious questions, without the Bible — the 
only infallible rule of right. On such subjects my "track" 
takes me directly to the " Blessed Book," the fountain of 
truth ! 

I repeat, I did not ask you to depend on my assertions 
concerning the meaning of that book, I gave the gentleman 
standard authorities in great abundance. Poole, Henry, 
Scott, Gill, and many other eminently, wise and good men, 
who, if they were here now, would be denounced and 
excommunicated, because they were not abolitionists ! But 
the gentleman, though bold in his assertions concerning the 
Bible, has not one sound scholar to agree with him. 

If Poole, and Henry, and Scott, and Gill, and Home, 
and Dick, and Chalmers, and Cunningham, and Woods, 
and Stuart, and Tyler, and Spring, and Wayland, and 
Bacon, and the whole Church of Scotland, are ignorant of 
the Bible, and all in error concerning the facts there recorded 
about slavery and slave-holders ; I am quite content to be 
denounced in such company ; and I am clearly of opinion, 
that if they, and such as they have failed to understand 
the Bible on this subject, we cannot expect much light 
from the gentleman and his coadjutors. 

I repeat what I have said before, that I oppose abolition- 
ism, not because it tends to abolish slavery, and improve the con- 
dition of the slave, but because it tends to perpetuate it, and ag- 
gravate all its evils. Never as I firmJy believe, will slavery be 
abolished by your abolition lectures, your newspaper ttiii 
pamphlet denunciations of slave-holders, without regard, 
to the character or circumstances ; or by attempting to 
exclude them from the Christian church. In New York, 
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, it has been abo- 

31 



482 DISCUSSION. ) 

lished, but not by the principles of abolitionists. So long 
as the system continued, masters and slaves were members 
of the same churches, and sat at the same table of the Lord. 
Ministers of the Gospel, faithful to their high commission,such 
men as many who are now denounced by abolitionists as pro- 
slavery, proclaimed the Gospel both to masters and slaves ; 
and through its elevating and purifying influence upon 
the public mind, slavery was gradually abolished. And 
thus it must be abolished, if abolished at all, in the present 
slave-holding States. 

But my time has expired ; and now, in closing this dis- 
cussion, I cannot but express my gratification in view of 
the patient and respectful attention which has been paid to 
this discussion by so large a portion of my fellow citizens, 
who have heard it. I leave you to determine in view of 
your responsibility to God, on which side of this import- 
ant question the truth is found. 

And to you. Gentlemen Moderators, my thanks are due, 
for the time you have been willing to spend in presiding 
over this discussion. 



3lv77-i 



VALUABLE 

SCHOOL AND MUSIC BOOKS, 

PUBLISHED BY 

110 MAIN STREET, CIJVCmMTI. 



A National Geography, for Schools ; 

Illustrated by 220 Engravings and 33 Maps ; with a Globe 
Map, on a new plan. By S. G. Goodrich, author of Peter 
Parley'^s Tales. 

The awkward separation of Maps from the descriptive text, in geographical 
works, has long been regarded as a formidable evil — especially in those designed 
for the youthful student. With a view to obviate this, the author of the present 
work issued a book on Geography, about twelve years since, in which the maps 
were placed in contiguity with the reading matter. This experiment led the 
writer to form the design of the present work, which was undertaken some 
years since, but laid aside for other engagements. 

The following are deemed to be some of the prominent features of the present 
work : — 

1. It is designed as a school-book — as a book for teaching; and nothing in the 
work is allowed to interfere with this design. 

2. Simplicity, perspicuity and convenience, have been carefully studied in the 
arrangement of the whole work. 

3. In respect to maps, a new and useful device has been adopted, which we 
entitle a Olobe-Map. It is a substitute for an artificial globe, with the advan- 
tage of being easily handled, and constantly before the eye, during the early 
stage of the study. It is believed that the utility of this simple contrivance, in 
giving correct notions of the face of the earth, and imprinting lasting pictures on 
the mind, -of the form and situation of its leading physical features, cannot be 
easily over-estimated. 

4. As a means of rendering the progress of the pupil at once agreeable and 
effective, the author has endeavored to invest the subject with every degree of 
interest of which it is capable. He has sought to keep the attention alive by 
vivid descriptions. 

This -work is manvfactured in the best style, as regards paper, printing, and 
binding: and sold at retail for 50 cens per copy. 



Parley's Geography, for Beginners; 

With eighteen Maps, and one hundred and Jifty Engravings. 

This work is by the same popular author as " The JVational Oeography." 
His design has been to make this work a pleasing guide through the early stages 
of geographical study. It will be observed, therefore, that the first steps are 
rendered easy, and no great task is required, till the meaning of geography is 
acquired, and until certain leading ideas — as the shape of the earth, the use of 
maps, &e. — have been clearly formed. Price only 95 csnts pibr copy. 



PRIMAMY EDUCATIOIV: 

AS CONNECTED 

WITH THE USE OF 

Sx\NDERS^ SERIES OE SCHOOL BOOKS, 

COMPRISING 

SANDERS' PRIMARY SCHOOL PRIMER, pp. 48. 
« SCHOOL READER, 1st BOOK, pp. 120. 
« SCHOOL READER, 2nd BOOK, pp. 180. 
« SCHOOL READER, 3rd BOOK, pp. 250. 
« SCHOOL READER, 4th BOOK, pp. 304. 
« SPELLING BOOK, pp. 168. 



The number of Elementary School Books extant, renders it 
necessary to state, briefly, some of the general advantages 
which this series possesses over others. The opinion too gen- 
erally prevails, even among teachers, that there is no room for 
improvement in books of this character — that anything contain- 
ing columns of words, or reading matter, is suitable for a spel- 
ling or reading book. 

It is in consequence of this idea, that so little care is taken in 
the selection of such books for schools, and that so few, after 
passing through years of drudgery, come out good readers and 
spellers — the first essential accomplishment for a good scholar. 
If those entertaining this opinion will have but the candor to 
suspend it, until they have perused the following pages, it is be- 
lieved they will be convinced that they have fallen in with a 
common error, and that it is not without strong reasons this se- 
ries is offered to the public. 

The series forms, as far as it is carried, a complete system. 
Every step the child takes, raises him a little higher, and gives 
him a firm foot-hold for his next advance. It commences with 
the alphabet, and ends with the most difficult forms of 
spelling and reading, and yet the ascent is so gradual as to 
hardly attract the attention of the pupil. He finds each lessoa 
SO full, that with but little attention on the part of the teacher hd 



becomes perfectly familiar with it before he is required to try his 
strength on the next, and it is believed he must be sadly wanting 
in native power of mind, who, having under proper instruction, 
passed regularly through to the end of the series, does not close 
the last book a good speller and a good reader. A general de- 
scription of the manner in which this plan is carried out, is 
here given. 

THE PRIMARY SCHOOL PRIMER. 

This is designed as the first book for the learner, and to serve 
as an introduction to the First Reader^ and not to the Spelling 
Book. It has carefully been prepared with special reference to 
being used as a school book. It is, therefore, bound in a sub- 
stantial manner, with a stiff cover and cloth back. A particu- 
lar reference will here be made to it, since the principle oa 
which it is constructed, presents the plan uniformly adopted 
throughout the entire Series. 

The first two lessons after the alphabet, p. 14, embrace all 
the common words of two letters, in the English language — 
being thirty in number. The syllables, ba^ bo, bu, or bla, blo^ 
blu, &LC.,3iVenot inserted. When the child can read, spell, and 
pronounce at sight — things indispensable — these words, three 
of them are arranged in a sentence for reading ; thus, '■'-we go 
inr 

But lest he be unable to give the words of this little sentence 
a ready utterance, from having seen them with so many others, 
they are for the purpose of calling his attention, arranged pre- 
viously in a spelling column, in the same order as they occur 
in the sentence. The same arrangem.ent with words of tAvo let- 
ters, is continued for two pages — the sentences increasing in 
length to the number of six words. After this, words of three 
letters arc in the same manner gradually introduced, and so on 
with words of four letters. 

By this means, when the scholar is required to read a sentence, 
he is prepared to give an easy and natural utterance to each 
word, and learns to read, without acquiring those strained and 
unnatural habits, which cost him his very breath to practice. 
IVloreover, experience has proved, that by this arrangement, 
with the co-operation of the teacher, the progress of the scholar 
is greatly facilitated. 

In other Series, the learner usually first spells a long list of 
words, which, for the most part, forms no portion of the lesson 
he is soon required to read. The consequence is, to accomplish 
it, he is obliged to make the greatest possible effort, and the 
more he struggles, the worse his reading. Such a practice will 
inevitably beget a forced and stammering manner. It is impos- 



sible to prevent it. On the other hand, if he can read his les- 
son without eflbrt, (which he is able to do, when he is familiar 
with each word composing it,) he will acquire a fluent style that 
cannot but be admired. 

One of the principal advantages of this system, is its simpli- 
city. Instead of its being a mysterious uncertainty, 

''Where all is nsw, and all unknown," 
the child clearly sees the very process by which he progresses. 
The book is composed wholly of words of one syllable^ 
with the exception of a few lessons at the close. 

THE SCHOOL REA.DER, FIRST BOOK. 

From what has been said with regard to the Primer, it will be 
understood that this book, as well as those that follow it, are 
constructed on the same plan — the difficult words being arrang- 
ed for spelling before each reading lesson — the reverse of most 
other series. The ^xsi fifty pages of this reader, are made up 
of words of 07ie syllable, notwithstanding the quantity con- 
tained in the Primer. After this, words of two syllables are 
gradually introduced, which, with few exceptions, continue 
through the book. In order that correct tastes and habits in 
reading be early acquired, the subject of each lesson is brought 
fully within the comprehension of children : and though the 
lessons are designed to interest^ yet not the less to instruct. 

THE SCHOOL READER, SECOND BOOK. 

The first fifly pages of this book are made up almost wholly 
of monysyllables and dissyllables. The lessons are but one 
grade above those of the First Reader. The most difficult words, 
as in the preceding book, are formed into spelling lessons before 
the reading. The unnecessary repetition of these words has 
been carefully avoided, and they have been selected in the order 
they occur in the lesson. 

In primary instruction. Pictures hold an important place, as 
a means of facilitating the progress — attracting the attention — 
and enlisting the interest of the scholar. But their use, like 
other good things, is liable to great abuse. The practice of 
constantly crowding before the eyes of children luminous pic- 
tures, excites the fancy to excess, and soon withdraws the atten- 
tion wholly from the lesson. After having been thus stimula- 
ted for a time, the mind becomes dormant, and the child mani- 
fests no disposition to peruse even lessons which are thus illu- 
minated^ much less, those not. To use them in a proper man- 
ner, has been particularly regarded in these books. The most 
attractive pictures, however, held up to the view of the scholar 



will be found in the lessons themselves — attracti^-e, not frorn 
iheer novelt?/, but from the healthful instruction, both moral and 
>ntellectual, which they afibrd. 

THE SCHOOL READER, THIRD BOOK. 

An additional feature characterizes this as well as the Fourth 
Reader, which is, Definitions. Each difficult word, when it 
first occurs in a reading exercise, is defined in immediate connec- 
tion with the spelling-, before the lesson. It will be remembered 
that in other Series now in use, the scholar is required to "spell 
and define" the difficult words after the lesson, but they are not 
defined. Now, the plan of actually defining before the lesson, 
is not only to be preferred on account of its convenience, but al- 
so as it saves the expense of purchasing dictionaries for that 
purpose. Besides, if the scholar be referred to a dictionary for 
the definition, why not refer him, also, to the same source for 
the spelling? Moreover, if it is important, as all admit it is, that 
he understand what he reads, ought he not to be required to 
learn the signification of such words before he reads? For cer- 
tainly, if he does not understand the parts, he cannot understand 
the whole. 

What can be more absurd than requiring a child to go through 
a whole series of elementary books, without meeting with a sin- 
gle definition, except the precious few of two hundred at the 
close of the spelling book? Why, he merely accumulates a 
cloud of words, of which he never knows the use! To de- 
fine the simple words that are made use of in the First and Sec- 
and Readers, would be "darkening counsel." Moreover, to re- 
quire it, would be asking too much for those only capable of 
reading in such books. But scholars, prepared for a book of 
this rank, are capable of learning for themselves, with proper 
facilities presented, the meaning of those words with which they 
are not already familiar. For them to pass indifferently over, 
words, unacquainted with their import, every judicious teacher- 
must deem it improper in the extreme. Yet when no means are 
provided for them to learn the definition, except by reference to 
some foreign souixe, how often is it regarded a sufficient apolo- 
gy, with the teacher, for treating the subject with utter neglect! 
But when the definitions are given, as in this and the Fourth 
Reader, there is no longer any disposition to pass them by. 

In defining, the literal or gcneroJ meaning is given. This 
is, the sense the word generally bears. When it is learned, the 
figurative and other shades of meaning are at once understood 
by the connection in which the word stands. But when the 



figurative sense is very foreign from the literal, that meaning- is 
also given, as near as can be, independent of the connection. To 
define only the sense in which a word happens to be used as is 
done in books now prominently before the public, is worse than 
not to define at all; for what is given as figurative^ is taken as 
literal. Besides, it is attempting to give that meaning which 
can 07ily be learned properly by the connection. 

THE SCHOOL READER, FOURTH BOOK. 

This book difl^ers, in an essential particular, from any other 
4th Reader, or book sustaining that relation ever published. 
Part 1st embracing thirty four pages, is devoted to instruction in 
the science of reading, or Elocution. It is divided into short 
lessons, with questions appended. The instructions are more 
elementary, more practical — and accompanied by more numer- 
ous exercises — than are found in the ordinary works on Elocu- 
tion. It is designed that while each lesson is made use of, as a 
reading exercise, it be also studied as a Grammar lesson. 

The Rhetorical principles given are those of our American au- 
thor, Dr. Porter. He has laid out a new path, or done for Elocu- 
tion, what Campbell and Whately have performed for the more ab- 
struse branches of Rhetoric. Instead of a set of arbitrary rules 
which might serve to direct the scholar in giving the proper tone 
and emphasis to this or that piece set for declamation, and as effec- 
tually murder every other of a different style and subject, he has 
by a long course of study, and close observ-ation, sought for the 
universal principles of Eloquence, and as far as the nature of the 
subject would admit, reduced them to a respective scientific form. 
He does not profess to give to the public a "Rhetorical Guide" that 
may make a man a good speaker ; but to analize the nature of 
Eloquence, and to lay down distinctly, and illustrate fully, the 
principles that every real orator follows, and whether he knows 
it or not always has followed, and never has violated without a 
failure proportionate to his offence. The Elocutionist who pro- 
ceeds on the ordinary plan, acts as wisely as would a Grammari- 
an, who instead of searching out the inherent principles of a 
language, to which all its best writers, whether knowingly, or 
unknowingly conform, should frame a set of arbitrarymaxims of 
his own for the use of all who would speak or write w^th pro- 
priety; — or as sensibly as a logician who instead of setting 
forth the mode in which universal TediBon acts — the principles by 
which all correct reasoning must be conducted, should, in the 
plcnlitude of his caprice, manufacture a Reasoner's Guide, with- 
out any reference to, or it may be, altogether foreign to the intel- 
lectual structure ; — or further, as well as the musician, who gives 





instruction for learning this, or that piece, instead of teaching- the 
science of his art and rules for execution, that are of universal 
application. By the former plan, one, it is true, may learn to 
perform many pieces admirably, but his musical knowledge be- 
gins and ends with them. All the directions he has received, 
are confined to the "lessons," and if he attempts to extend them 
to others, it is with a certainty of frequent blunders, and a want 
of all confidence, even when he is right. Just so it must be 
with any capricious system of Elocution. It may serve to di- 
rect the reader in giving the proper tone and emphasis to words 
and sentences on the particular pages to which it refers, but 
there its utility ends; and if its rules be thoroughly learned, as 
all elementary knowledge should, so that they be incorporated 
in the mind, and become, as it were, habits of the understanding, 
which the scholar in after life follows unconsciously, and with- 
out knowing whence they came, they cannot fail to vitiate his 
taste, make his delivery stiff and unnatural, and in a good degree 
render abortive the best natural powers. 

The success that "Porter's Rhetorical Reader," has met with, 
shows how well his design has been carried out. It has become 
a standard text book all over the Union. It has been recom- 
mended by many of the most distinguished professors in our 
American colleges, and has already passed through two hun- 
dred and thirty large editions. 

In part 2nd,the notation^ for the proper inflection, emphasis, 
&c., is only employed in cases where there is a liability to err, 
or in passages peculiarly illustrative of some Rhetorical princi- 
ples, which it is desired the scholar should be led to observe. 
The continuous use of a 7iotation, in unnecessary as well as ne- 
cessary cases, is as wise as would be the erection of "Guide 
Posts" at every corner of the fence — from their frequency they 
are passed unobserved, even where it is needful that they be re- 
garded. It is a grossly mistaken idea, and one entertained only 
by the most superficial teachers, that the modulation of the voice 
should be regulated entirely by notation, instead of the sense. 
In fact the sense is the only notation of any use in ordinary ca- 
ses. Anything like a substitute is pernicious. The constant 
use of it is not^unlike the puerile practice, (formerly in use, but 
now utterly repudiated by judicious teachers,) of affixing to a 
defining vocabulary a notation, designating the parts of speech 
to which the several words belong — requiring the scholar to 
distinguish them, not from a knowledge of what constitutes a 
noun^verb, t^c, but sheer ly from the notation. 

In the 1st and 2nd Readers the words that compose the spel- 
ling lessons, are divided into syllables — in the 3rd and 4th, only 
where there is a liability to mistake, and at the same time the 



pronunciation is denoted. To do it in all cases, would be per- 
forming for teacher and scholar what they ought to do them- 
selves, and to suppose them incapable, after such assistance ag 
has been afforded, would, to say the least, be paying them no 
very high compliment; moreover, without such practice, they 
might be rendered incapable of ever doing it with propriety. 

Besides the ordinary questions on the subject of the lessons as 
in other books, there are others paramount in importance — ques- 
tions as to the proper inflections, emphasis, &c., which are ne- 
cessary to give full expression to the sense. Annexed to these 
questions, are references to the instructions of Part First, where 
the principles now required to be applied are fully elucidated, 
thus giving them great practical value. 

GENERAL FEATURES. 

Print.— This is open, clear, and distinct. That in the Prioner 
is large— In the First Reader^ it is a size smaller — in the Sec- 
ond Reader^ the same as in the First. That of the Third, 
smaller, but not so small as in the Fourth Reader, which is the 
ordinary size. This feature must be deemed a matter of much 
importance. That the print in a Second, should be as small as 
in a Fourth Reader, which is the case in other series, must be 
regarded as no inconsiderable objection. 

Proge-ession. — An equally serious objection, urged against 
every series published, is that the progression is too rapid. 
This is especially true in passing from the Second to the Third 
Reader — the Third being quite as elevated, both in style and 
subjects, as the Fourth Reader. The consequence is, the schol- 
ar is soon lost, as it were in an interminable maze. This fault, 
which is no minor one, has never been regarded as applicable 
to this Series. The gradation is both easy and natural — the 
subjects, while they are instructive, are calculated to win the at- 
tention of the learner, and allure him on, step by step, to that 
which is more advanced. Nothing can have a more pernicious 
influence on the mind of youth, than reading that which they 
are unable to comprehend. The practice not only begets in 
them habits of indifference, but, more than that, they acquire a 
perfect disgust for reading of any description, however interest- 
ing. 

CtivRACTER OF THE Lessons. — Purity of sentiment and 
thought, must be considered of no small importance. While 
this has been regarded, elegance of expression, chasteness of 
style, and adaptedness to instruct in reading have by no means 
been overlooked. 



8 

Variety. — Another feature, not less important, which char- 
acterizes this Series, is the great variety it embraces, both in sub- 
ject and style. The manner of reading must be adapted to the 
style of the composition. If narrative, it must be read in the 
narrative style — if argumentative, then in the argumentative 
style. Hence the importance of variety. For, if the style of 
the composition be uniform, that of the reading must necessarily 
become unitorm and monotonous. This is invariably the result 
in the use of histories for reading books — a practice already too 
prevalent. 

Spelling and Pronunciation. — Throughout the Series, the 
Spelling and Pronunciation is uniform — being in conformity 
with Webster. 

SANDER'S SPELLING BOOK. 

This book is designed to be used in connection with the 
Readers — being taken up soon after the scholar begins the 
First Reader. It contains many classes of words for spelling, 
which are often omitted in others, as proper names ; the States 
with their abbreviations and capitals; the books of the Old and 
New Testaments with their abbreviations ; words which are pro- 
nounced nearly as well as others quite alike, &,c. The 
instructions in the Elements of Orthography are more com- 
plete and easily comprehended than those commonly found in 
spelling books— being accompanied with a scheme for parsing", 
by which they are practically applied. 

In most of the lessons a plan is adopted, by which the scholar 
is able to learn, to some extent the meaning of the words which 
he spells — a word in one column definiag, in part, one in an op- 
posite column. Thus, — 



a bate de crease 

com prise in elude 



al lure en tice 

con cur ag-ree 



By this arrangement the words are contrasted in signification, 
and hence, the differences between the words, in meaning, can 
easily be pointed out, as well as the resemblance. The words 
however, can be spelled in the ordinary manner, if desired, since 
the}?' are as well classified as if not thus arranged. i 

The spelling and pronunciation, are as in the Readers, in 
accordance with Webster's Dictionary. Therefore, the follow- 
ing inconsistencies, with many others of a similar nature, which 
abound iti books conformable to Walker, are avoided. The spel- 
ling within the parentheses, is as adopted in this book. When 



there is none thus annexed to a word, the spelhng in this book 
is the same as that in others. 

Villain, villany (villainy), villanous (villainous) — embassy, 
ambassador (embassador), ambassadress (embassadress) — em- 
bark, embarcation (embarkation) — dependant (dependent), inde- 
pendent — roll, unrol (unroll), enrol (enroll) — will, wilful (will- 
ful) — stillness, fulness, (fullness) — recall, enthral (inthrall) from 
ihrall — illness, dulness (dullness) — install, instalment (install- 
ment) — enter, centre (center) — neuter, nitre (niter) — sober, sa- 
bre (saber; — diameter, metre, (meter) — high, height (hight) — 
highness, heighten (highten) — perilous, marvellous (marvelous) 
— novelist, duellist (duelist) — equality, equalling (equaling) — 
scandalous, libellous (libelous,) — cooler, woollen, (woolen) im- 
moveable (immovable), removable, irremoveable (irremovable) 
— approvable, irreproveable (irreprovable) — ratable, saleable 
(salable)^ — curable, sizeable (sizable), blameable (blamable)-- 
ensure (insure) — ensurance (insurance) — endict (indict) — en- 
dorse (indorse) — enclose (inclose) — aught, nought (naught) — • 
rackoon (raccoon) — visiter (visitor) — instructer (instructor) — • 
riband (ribin) — expense, from the Latin expensum, offence (of- 
fense) from the Latin offensus^ offensive — correction, connexion 
(connection)— stupify (stupefy), stupefaction — flax, axe (ax) — • 
honour (honor), honorary — musick (music), musical, &.c. &c. 

From the foregoing, it is evident that this spelling, to say 
nothing of pronunciation, is not only more uniform than in 
books founded on Walker's Dictionary, but also more nearly 
agrees with present practice. General Rules for spelling, 
which are quite uniform in their application, are given on the 
last two pages of the book, to which reference is to be made 
while spelling the preceding lessons. By a proper attention to 
those rules, the spelling of large classes of words, which is of- 
ten mistaken, will be readily acquired. 

The efforts of the Author, in preparing this Series, have thus 
far met with a hearty response from the friends of education, in 
the generous patronage they have extended to the works — hav- 
ing be n adopted in the schools of Cincinnati, Brooklyn, Pitts- 
burgh, Rochester, St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, Dayton, Colum- 
bus, Thirty Counties in the State of New York, etc. etc. etc. 

It may here be mentioned, moreover, that the best evidence of 
their merits, is evinced in the attempts that have been made, and 
are making, to imitate them, in some cases by issuing new 
books, but mostly in remodeling old ones. 



10 

RECAPITULATION. 

Some of the particulars wherein these books, as a series, ex- 
cel, are as follows: 

1st. The Primary Books contain more reading, composed of 
easy words — there being ninety pages made up of monosyl- 
lables. 

2nd. The most difficult words of the reading are formed in- 
to spelling lessons. 

3rd. The Spelling Lessons precede the reading in which they 
occur. 

4th. In the Third and Fourth Readers, the most difficult 
words are defined, in a general and literal sense. 

5th. The Progression from one book to another is more reg- 
ular^ gradual, and philosophical. 

6th. The lessons are better adapted to interest and instruct, 
and at the same time suited for the purpose of teaching read- 
ing. 

7th. The Practical and judicious use of Pictures, calcula- 
ted to assist, not retard the efforts of teachers. 

8th. The Practical and Elementary instructions in the Rhc- 
torical principles of reading and speaking, being those of our 
American Author, Dr. Porter. These are deduced froin Na- 
ture itself, and calculated fully to elucidate what is requisite to 
read, or speak, with propriety — not to serve as a mere arbitrary 
Guide, having no foundation in nature. 

9th. In the exercises for reading, the Rhetorical notation is 
adopted only where there is a liability to err, or in passages pe- 
culiarly illustrative of some Rhetorical principle. 

10th. Questions are placed at the end of the reading lessons, 
as to the proper inflections, or other modulations of the voice, 
requisite to be used in reading with propriety. 

11th. References are made to the Rhetorical instructions of 
the former part, and the scholar is required to apply the princi- 
ples there stated to the lesson before him. 

12th. Words are divided into syllables in the 1st and 2nd 
Readers, but in the 3d and 4th only where there is a liability to 
mistake — thus requiring the exercise of .the scholar's judg- 
ment in ordinary cases, and rejecting the puerile practice of al- 
ways doing it for them. 

13th. The Print is more full, clear and distinct, gradually 
diminishing from the largo print of the Primer to that of or- 
dinary size, as found in the Fourth Reader. 

14th. A greater variety will be found both in subject and style, 
than is usual in books of this character. 



11 

15th. The spelling and pronunciation is uniformly that of 
Dr. Webster. 



■ The Publishers deem it proper to stale, that no books have been received by tha 
Public with greater favor than those of Sanders'— they are adapted to all classes, from 
the abecedarian to the most advanced classes in our Schools and Academies, and it ia 
believed the lessons will be found much more regularly progressive, and instructive 
than those of any other Series extant. The Speller, it may be safely said, has no 
equal in value and intrinsic merit, among the numerous works of its class, claiming 
the patronage of the American people ; the same, may with propriety be said of This 
Primer, both are used exclusively in the Public Schools of Cincinnati, and the entire 
Series in those of Pitsburgh and Dayton, and have been extensively introduced ia 
each of the Slates of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri and Michigan. Ia 
the Empire State, (N. Y.) so distinguished for her excellent system of Common Schools, 
and well endowed Academies, Sanders' Series have received the recommenda- 
tions of the principal Deputy Superintendents, and^Teachers' Associations, and been 
generally adopted. 



TESTIMONIALS 

From hundreds of Practical Teachers of the highest respectability in all parts 
of the Union are before us, giving unequivocal testimony that Sanders' School 
Books are superior to any of a similar kind. 

We subjoin some specimens— 

From the Rev. B. P. Aydelott, D. D., President of Woodward College, and Presi 
dent of the Board of Examiners and Inspectors of Common Schools, Cincinnati. 

Sanders' Series of School books, consisting of six volumes from "The Primary School 
Primer" to the "Fourth School Reader," were placed in my hands for examination. 

They are very neatly executed in all that belong to the printer, engraver, and binder* 

The matter has evidently been selected with great care, both in respect to the inlel 
lectual and moral instruction of the pupil. It would be invidious to compare this Se- 
ries with others before the public, but this may with propriety be said, that I know noi 
upon the whole abetter set of school books. The great number of new text books 
continually brought before the public is much complained of, but it is only by such, 
continuous effort we can ever arrive at that perfection, at which it is alike our duly and 
our interest to aim. 

A vast improvement has certainly taken place in this department of education with- 
in the last thirty years, and I believe it will rarely be found that any school book, 
•which has attained to a respectable circulation, is not in some respectg better than any 
that has preceeded it. Copy. (Signed) B. P. AYDELOTTE. 

Woodward College, Jan. 3, 1843. 

From the distinguished instructor F. G. Carey, A. M. Principal of Pleasant Hill 

Academy, near Cincirmati. 

'" When I received 'the series of school readers by Sanders, my impression was, 1?hat 
there was no demand for any further addition to the many already in use. And un- 
der this impression I took up this series, and, after a critical examination, am constrain- 
ed to say that it was entirely removed. I unhesitatingly give this series of books my 
decided preference, and as the best evidence of my regard, have introduced it, togeth- 
er with Sanders' Speller, into my institution. 

Some of the points among the many that might be mentioned that prefer its claims 
to superiority, are, 1. It is more regularly progressive in its character, and consequent- 
ly better adapted to the mind in its various stages of advancement- an element of the 
first impojtance in a series of school books. 2. The contents, embracing selections of 
a high literary character, and decided moral tendency, from a great variety of authors, 
prjucipal)^ American, are more deeply interesting to the young than those of most 



12 

readers. 3. The lessons on the elementary principles of our language, and the few 
plain rules and exercises for reading correctly, as well a-s rhetorically, prefixed to the 
4lh Reader, are of great utility. 

The Speller is in no respect inferior to the Readers, and upon the whole I would re- 
commend this as the best series among the many that has come under my review 

Pleasant Hill, July 21, 1843. F. q. cARE'y. 

From the Rev. John C. Young, D. D. President of Centre College, Danville, Ky. 

From the examination which 1 have given to Sanders' Series of School Books, I feel 
warranted in recommending them to the public as works of merit. In some important 
points I consider them superior to any books of thekirid which I have ever seen. 

Danville, Ky., Sept. 6th, 1843. JOHN C. YOUNG. 

From Rev. W. J. Broaddus, D. D., Principal of Female Seminary, Lexington. 
Having examined with some care, the series of School Books published by W. H. 
Moore & Co., it gives me great pleasure to reccommend them to the friends of youth 
and of education. For the mechanical execution of these books, the publishers are 
entitled to much commendation, while great credit is due to the enterprising gentle- 
men who have taken so much pains to furnish our youth with so efficient aid in the 
Rudiments of English Literature. 
.Female Seminary, Lexington, Ky., June 2Sth, 1843. "W. J. BROADDUS. 

From Rev T. N. Ralston, Principal of Female Collegiate High School, 
I have examined the Spelling Book and series of School Readers by Charles W. 
Sanders, and I cheerfully express the opinion that they are not excelled by any ele- 
mentary works of the kind with which I am acquainted. 
Lexington Ky., June 16, 1843. ^ T. N. RALSTON.} 

At a meeting of the School Directors of Oxford, Butler county, O., Feb. 1, 1843, it was 

Resolved, That agreeably to tlje reccommendation of "The Advisory Committee," 
consisting of— 

Rev. Dr. Junkin, President of Miami University, 
'* J. W. Scott, Prof of Chemistry and Nat. Philosophy in Miami University, 
'' Joseph Claybaugh, D. D., President of Theological Seminary, and others; 
the following named books be used in the common schools in said district, viz. 

Sanders' Primary School Primer, Sanders' Spelling Book, Sanders' School Readers, 
1st; 2d, 3d and 4th books, &c. 

From C. C. Giles, Principal of Female Seminary, Hamilton, O. 

Hamilton, March 2nd, 1843. 
' Mr. Sanders, Sir.— I have examined your series of School Books with some care 
and I am much pleased with them. I do not know of any books better calculated to 
convey a correct and familiar knowledge of the English Language. Their progressive 
character, I consider a great improvement. I shall introduce them into my school as 
soon as circumstances will admit. C. C. GILES, j 

From the Principal of Public Schools of the Fifth and Sixth Districts, Cincinnati, 

Cincinnati, November, 1842. J 

Mr. Sanders, Sir.— I have examined your Series of School Books, and believe them 
to be well calculated, by their philosophical arrangement, simplicity, and appropriate 
ness of language, to interest and improve the youthful mind. The Spelling Book, in 
my opinion, contains many excellencies, superior to anyone of the kind that has come 
to my knowledge. The series, I think, admirably well adapted to meet the wants of 
Common Schools. J. B. WYMAN. 

We cheerfully concur with Mr. J. B. Wyman, in the above expression of hia views 
in regard to Sanders' Series of School Books. 

Darius Davenport, Principal of 9ih and 10th Districts. 

Cyrus Davenport, Principal of 7th District. 

John Hilton, Assistant in 7lh District. 

H. J. Adams, Principal of lllh and Pith Districts. 

Hiram P. Randall, Principal of 4th District. 

Samuel R, Evans, Principal of Public School, Fulton. 



13 



FromH. B. Edifards, Principal of First District School, and Oliver Wilson, Prin" 
cipal of the Second District School, Cincinnati. 
Mr. C. W. Sanders,— We have examined the School Readers you left with us, and 
believe ihey possess superior claims to the altenlion of teachers and otliers connected 
with elementary education. The moral lessons contained particularly recommend the 
work. H. H. EDWAKDS, 

November 23, 1842. OLIVER WILSON, 

From Professor J. TV. Hopkins, Principal of Preparat ory Department, Woodward 

College, Cincinnati, October 5th, 1842. 

I have examined ' Sanders' Third and Fourth Readers,' and take pleasure in saying 
that 1 believe them equal in every respect to any works of this kind now in use in the 
western country, and in many respects superior. The progressive arrangement of the 
exercises cannot be easily improved. The selections are very good, and calculated 
not only to interest and please the pupil, but many of them will no doubt produce 
lasting beneficial efTecis upon the hearts of those who may study them. If any worka 
of this kind are worthy of patronage, these certainly are. RespectfuUv, 

JOHN W.HOPKINS. 

From Rev. P- B. Wither , A. M., Principal of the Methodist Female Collegiate Insti' 
tute, Cincinnati, October 20th, 1842. 

Mr. Panders,— Dear Sir,— I have examined with as much care as circumstances would 
permit, your series of School Books consisting of the Primary School Primer, impelling 
Book, and the First, Second, Third and Fourth Readers; and think them well calcula- 
ted to accomplish the end for which they were severally intended— indeed I consider 
them superior in several important respects to any similar works with which I am ac- 
quainted. We shall introduce them after this quarter into this institution. 

I am, dear sir, very respectfully yours, &c,, P. B. WILBER.' 

From Professor J. Herron, Principal of English Department, Cincinnati College^ 

Cincinnati, November 22d, 18-12. 

Mr. C. W. Sanders— Dear sir, I have examined your series of School Books with 
great interest, fJir I believe they combine more excellencies than any now in use, and 
if generally adopted, will prove conducive to that uniformity in spelling and pronun- 
ciation so much to be desired in the English language: and I feel warranted in using 
them in the English Department of the College, and in recommpnding their general 
use. ' JOSEPH HERRON. 

Tile Editor of a Public Journal, published at Bath, Steuben County, says: 
We have had the pleasure of examining this series of School Books, which have al- 
ready become so deservedly populnr ihroughotil the state, having been recommended 
by the Deputy Superintendents of thirty five dilTerent counties. We cannot more 
fully express our views than to insert the loUowing letter to the Author, from R. K. 
finch, Esq., the able Deputy Superintendent of common schools for this county :— 

Bath, September 19ih, 1842. 
Mr. C. W. Sanders, Dear Sir,— I have a-t length found time to give your Spelling 
Book a patient and critical examination, and am prepared to say that 1 consider it a 
work of superior merit, and one that is better adapted to the wants of our common 
schools, academies and other seminaries of learning, than any other work of the kind. 
Both the matter and arrangement entitle you to the claim of originality, so far at least 
as originality is possible on this subject. That part which treats of the vowels and 
other elementary sounds, Vs peculiarly correct, lucid and well calculated to give the 
learner a gwd understanding of the whole subject. This I consider one of the best 
features of the book, as it remedies a serious defect which has hitherto existed, and one 
that has been seen and deplored by every intelligent teacher. In order to obtain a 
thorough knowledge of our language, the pupil must be carefully instructed in its first 
principles. He must learn not only the Rules of Orthography and Orthoepy, but must 
also be made acquainted with the use and practical application of these rules. Until 
the publication of your book we had no imroduciory work which furnished practical 
le.«!8on3 like those found in your orthographical analysis. The pupil was usually re- 
quired to commit to memory a number of abstract rules without illustration, which 
were entirely useless because not understood, and generally forgotten in less time than 
was occupied in learning them. I might also mfniion your explanation of the Prefixes 
and Suffixes, together witli your articles on infections as characteristic excellencies. 
Your reading lessons I consider well selected and well arranged, and valuable not 
ouly fgf their style, but also for the eerious) morality they inculcate. But I caauot at 



14 

present enter farther into panicularg. I shall shortly recommnncl its introduction into 
the several schools under my superintenJpiicy, when I can set f )rlh its rripriis more 
fuliy. Hopitis? you will find ample conipensaiion for your labor in the consciousness of 
having contributed to the general good, and in that liberal patronage which a generoua 
and enlightened community cannot fail to bestow, 

I am, dear sir, with much respect, your ob'l serv't. R. K. FINCH. 

From the Principals of the Public Schools, City of Neio York. 

Mr. C. W. Sanders, Dear Sir,— I have examined your series of Elementary School 
Books, and consider them highly calculated to please and improve the youthful mind. 
The reading lessons have evidently been selected with much care, and are of such a 
character as are calculated to cultivate the morals, while they entertain the mind.— 
The arrangement of the lessons in the last of the series of Readers must particularly 
commend itself to all persons engaged in teaching, on account of the questions and 
Spelling Lessons attached to each; this, and the many other improvements iniroduced 
in the whole series, will not fail to recommend them to the favorable opinion of Teach- 
ers generally. Yours, very respectfully, J. W. KETCHUM. 

New York, Jan. 12ih, 1843. Principal of New York Public School No. 7. 

We cheerfully and fully concur in the opinion e.^pressed above. 
L-'onard Hazeltine, Principal Public School No. H 
Charles S. Pell, Principal Public School No. 8. 
N. VV. Starr, Principal Public School No. 10. 
J. Patterson, Principal Public School No. 4. 
Abm. K Van Vleck, Principal Public School No. 16. 
Wm. Belden. Principal Public School No. 2. 
A. V. fctout, Principal Public School No. 13. 

Prom T. F. King, Deputy Superintendent of Schools for Kings county, N. Y. 

I have received the series of School Books edited by Mr. Sanders, and have given 
them that attention which ihe importance of the subject demands. After a careful 
and critical examination of the series— regard being had as well to the moral tendency 
Df the several reading lessons as to their literary qualities— I have no hestilaiion in 
pronouncing them the best series which have been presented to me for inspection, 
among the numerous works which I have examined with a view of introducing a uni- 
form series of school books into the common schools of our county. 

.^t a meeting of the school officers of the common 'schools of the city of Brooklyn, 
Sanders' series of Books were adopted as the reading books in the several schools, 
Brooklyn, March IGih, IS42. T. F. KING. 

From Pierpont Potter, Esq., Dep. Sup. of Common Schools for Queens county, N. Y. 
I I have examined the several school books published by jMr. Charles W. Sanders 
and I am confident that they are equal, if not superior, to any bonks of the kind that 
I have ever perused. After an experience of more than sixteen years as a teacher, I 
am decidedly of opinion that Sanders' Spelling Book is supf-rior to any work of the 
kind that has ever yet been published within the United States. 
Jamaica, 16th November, 1841. PIERPONT POTTER. J 

Pro7nIT F. Wilcox, Principal of Select School, Neicark, N. J, Nov. Ilil, 1841. 

Mr. C. VV. Sanders. Dear r-ir,— From personal converse wiih nearly half a hundred 
Practical Teachers, I have heard but one opinion respecting your "Series of School 
Books"— all say they are frood,and many unhesitatingly pronounce them (particularly 
the Spelling Book and Piinior) the best before the American public. As I have re- 
cently submitted them to my own clashes, by the way, ihe best ordeals of all for school 
books, I now feel confident 'to give ihem a hearty approval. Their chief excellencies 
are, 

1st. Uniformity in Orthography and Orthoepy. 

2d. The introduction of a '-Stcmdard Series," a thing greatly desired by parents and 
teachers, and much needed by the youth of a whole nation. 

3d. A comprehensive chapter in the Spelling Book on the elementary principles of 
our language, a part of education now much neglected, though I hope soon to be re- 
vived. The classification of words according to their syllabication, accent, termina- 
tion, synonymous meaning, sounds of letters where cli sounds like k, or sh—c, like s. 
fee the whole being more complete than 1 have ever before seen in one volume. 

4th. The prosre.'sslve order of ihe Reading Lessons from easy familiar monosyllablea 
to dissyllables, trisyllables, and more amended composition, thus adding a free aui 



15 

Intelligent habit of readin?. Also, their blending annusement with instruction, and 
Iheir obvious tendency to improve the life and heart of those for whom they are de- 

5ih. 'something might be said of the type, paper, binding, &c., though these will 
speak for themselves. Very respectfully, yours, H. f . WILLOA. 

Mr C W. ganders, Sir,— I perfectly coincide with Mr. Wilcox, in the above written 
opinion respecting your "Series of School Books." Mr. W. has justly remarked that 
Ihey "blend amusement wiih instruction;" and while I am writing, some little boys 
near me are wholly absorbed in the perusal of these, as they style them— "real pretty 

books " 

The introduction of lessons in vocal music, and of simple popular tunes, is also an 
admirable feature of your plan, inasmuch as the harmony of sounds is naturally calcu- 
lated to cause the sometimes harsh and jarring feelings of children to flow together 
and mingle in sweetest concord. Yours, A. N. DOUGHERTY, Jr. 

Newark, New Jersey, November 2Gth, 1S41. 

St. Louis English and Classical High School, April I3th, 1844. 

Mr. Sanders, Dear Sir —I have examined with some care your Primer, Spelling Book, 
Firsi, Second, Third and Fourtli Books of Reading; and in expressing an opinion upon 
their merits, need only say that I concur with the general testimony of those whose re- 
commendations of the series are already made public. It is my intention as soon as 
expedient to introduce them into my school. KespectfuUy, 

^ EDWARD WYMAN, Principal. 

From A. Chute, Principal of Public School, St. Louis. 

Mr. Sanders, Sir,— I have examined your series of School Books, and unhesitatingly 
assert, that in my opinion they are decidedly preferable to any thing ol the kind yet 
offered to the public. . ,.,„„„ ,,,T,-TnnT^ 

St. Louis, April 8lh, 1814. _ ANGUS CHUTE. 

From J. R. Dayton, Principal Public School, Quincy, III. 

Quincy, April 30th, 1844. 

Sir,— I have examined with considerable care your "Series of School Bocks." Tho 
progressive arrangement of the exercises cannot fail greatly to facilitate the progress of 
the pupil. The reading lessons are admirably calculated to instruct and to please and 
to render the task of learning to read, a pleasant and intellectual exercise. Their 
practical utility will introduce them to the favorable notice of parents and teachers. 

J take pleasure in adding the testimony of my approbation, to the numerous recom- 
mendations they have already received. Resp'y yours, J. R. DAYTON. 

At a meeting of the Board of Committee of the Middletown (Conn.) City School 
Society, hpld on the 26th of July, 18-15, it was unanimously 

Voted— Thm it is expedient to introduce into the several schools in this school society, 
Sanders' series of School Books for the use of the schools as they may be wanted. 

HAMILTON BREWER, Secretary. 

From the Principals of Public Schools in the city of Buffalo. 

Having examined with interest '• Sanders' Series of School Books," so far as pub- 
lished, we deem tliem worthy of our unqualified approval, and in view of their great 
merits, we cheerfully unite in recommending them to tlie favorable consideration of 
all who feel an interest in the cause of primary instruction. The facilities they afford 
the scholar in acquiring correct habiis of reading, and at the same time a thorough 
knowledge of the first principles of our language, render them truly a valuable series, 
and one that should find a place in our best public schools. 

Hiram Chambers, David Galusha, A. Dean, 

D. P. Lee, t-^amuel S. Guy, Seth Heacock, 

Loring Danforth, Wesley Brown, A. Mathieson, 

J. i-^. Brown, Enoch S. Ely, W. H. H. Eddy. 

Buffalo, August, 1841. 

Board of Education, qf the city of Rochester, August 25 1841. 

The President, from the committee on the selection of books, reported that the com- 
mlltee recommended the following to be adopted as a uniform series of elementary test 



16 

books fbi tTie use of public schools, and that the same be procured in all the schooto u 
Boon as practicable, viz. 

Sanders' Primary School Primer, Sanders' School Reader, Third Book. 

" School Reader, First Book, <• School Reader. Fourth Book, 

" School Reader, Second Book, " Spelling Book, 

Porter's Ilheiorical Reader, &c. 
"Which on motion, was unanimously adopted, and ordered printed. 
I certify the above to be a true copy of a report presented and adopted at the Board 
of Education of the city of Rochester, August 25, 1841. I. F. MACK. 

Superintendent of common Schools in the City of Rochester.' 

Extracts from notices of Sanders' Se7'ies, received by the publishers, bearing date 
July 1845. 

"I believe them to excel in several respects any series before the public."— Princ«- 
pal of a High School. 

"One striking exeellence of these books is the attractive character they offer to 
young minds, by which they are allured to their task, rather than compelled; while 
at the same time if the plan of the author is carried out by the teacher the pupil will 
be taken through a rigid mental exerc\se.''—Pri7icipal of an Academy . 

"1 am pleased with the arrangement of the lessons both in spelling and reading. 
There is an easy transition from the simple to the more difficult, and taking the series 
as a whole / think it the best I have ever seen. Tlie tone of the lessens is high and 
well calculated to impress favorably the mind of the young."~Principal Female In- 
stitute. 

"I think these books excel all other School Books of their kind now in use. I 
would particularly notice the very easy manner in which the pupil is led along from 
the Alphabet to a finished style of reading." * * * — Principal Primary School. 

•'Particularly do I approve of the Spelling Book as altogether the best in use,, 
Teacher in District School. 



PORTER'S RHETORICAL READER. 

The Rhetorical Keader, consisting of instructions for regulating the voiced 
with a Rhetorical notation, illustrating inflection, emphasis and modulation, and a 
course of Rhetorical Exercises. Designed for the use of Academies, and High Schools. 
By Ebenezer Porter, D. D , late President of the Theological Seminary, Ajidover, 
Mass. Two Hundred and Fortieth Edition, with an Appendix; 1 vol. 12mo. Spp, 
pp. 304. 

*** The popularity of this work is almost without bounds, as the number of editions 
through which it has passed, sufficiently testify. 

FVom Rev. John Todd, Author of "Students, Manual,'' "Index Return," S;c. 

I have but one opinion respecting it, viz : that in the hands of a competent teacher, 
there is no work of the kind, which will compare with it as a medium to teach youth 
to read understandingly, and of course correctly. For simplicity, for clearness of 
illustration and for beauty of composition, this selection stands almost unrivaled. I 
hardly know where so much genuine eloquence of thought and of expression can be 
found in an uninspired volume. And I should hail the lime with unaffected joy when 
it should find its way into every District School in the land, as the standard book for 
reading. 

Prom a Notice by the editor of the Boston Recorder. 

In this respect, (adaptation to rhetorical purposes,) this selection has a very decided 
advantage over all other selections of reading lessons that we are acquainted with. 



JFVom the New York Journal of Commerce. 

We have no hesitation in saying that this is the best work of the kind, for the pUTj 
poses mentioned, within our knowledge. 



17 

From S. R. Hall, Principal of Teachers^ Seminary, Plymouth, N. H. 

I have used the Rhetorical Reader ever since it was first published, and consider its 
influence on the habits of reading in the seminary as decidedly beneficial. As a friend 
to educaiion, I eamesLly desire the inlroduclion of the work, not only into Academies 
and Hi-'h Schools, but into well regulated district schools throughout the country, 



From the Boston Advocate. * 

The numerous editions through which ihis work hag passed, and the many reputa- 
ble insliluiions in which it is employed, sufficiently evince its well merited popularity. 
The principles which it inculcates are simple and philosophical, the language in which 
Ihpy are set forth is neat and perspicuous. The selections exhibit good judgment and 
fully indicate the author's regard for the moral as well as the menial improvement of 
pupils. To this point, liille auentioa is paid by many who prepare books for youth. 



NEWMAN'S RHETORIC. 

r A Practical System of Rlietoric— A practical system of Rhetoric, or the 
principles or rules of style inferred from examples of writing ; to which is added a his- 
torical dissertation on English style. By Samuel P. Newman, Prof, of Rhetoric in 
Bowdoin College. Twelfth edition, 1 vol. 12 mo. pp. 312. - - - - 62 l-2c. 

f The above work has been republished in England and introduced into the schools of 
that country. Mrs. Phelps (now IMrs. Almira H. Lincoln) author of the popular trea- 
tise on Botany speaks in ' TVie Female StudenV as follows : 

For a clear and interesting explanation of the elements of Taste, and of its three 
most essential qualities, refinement, delicacy and correctness, I would refer you to the 
valuable system of Rhetoric by Professor Newman. The author has taken up the 
Bubject in a philosophical and practical manner. He at once informs the student that 
the art of writing well is not to be obtained by a set of rules, but that ' the storehouse of 
the mind must be well filled, and he must have that command of his treasures which 
will enable him to bring forward whenever the occasion may require, what has been 
accumulated for future use.' He dwells particularly upon the necessity of mental 
discipline, especially the previous cultivation of the reasoning powers, and observes 
that 'the student who, in the course of his education, is called to search for truth in 
the labyrinth of metaphysical and moral reasonintrs, and to toil in the wearisome study 
of the long and intricate solutions of mathematical principles, is acquiring that disci- 
pline of tlie mind which fits him to distinguish himself as an able writer.' 

The chapter on Literary Taste is well written, and calculated to give just ideas of 
the peculiar merits of different authors, it also illustrates the proper use of Rhetorical 
figures. The chapter on Style is an interesting exposition of the qualities of a good 
style, and the modes of writing which characterize different individuals. This little 
work leads the pupil to a knowledge of the rules and principles of Rhetoric, in an 
easy and simple manner, and has the merit of more originality than many school books 
which profess to be improvements. 



■R. G. Parker, A. M., Principal of the Franklin Grammar School, Boston, and author 
of "■Progressive Exercises in English Composition," (a volume that has now reached 
its forty-fifth edition,) in notes appended to pages 1)8 and 99 of his work says, 

"The student is referred to a treatise upon Rhetoric, by Professor Newman, of Bow- 
doin College, recently published. 

The author of these exercises regrets that he had not the assistance of that valuable 
treatise, when he was preparing his volume. It was not until the present (third) edi- 
tion was more than half through the slereotyper's hands, that he saw the work of Pro- 
fessor Newman. * * His work on Rhetoric presents an illustration of the various 
kinds of style which should be studied by all. His valuable treatise cannot be too 
highly recommended." 

Other notices of similar import might be given, but the general'popularity of th? 
work renders it_unnecessaTj'. 



18 

OLMSTED'S RUDIMENTS OF NATURAL PHI- 
LOSOPHY AND ASTRONOMY. 

1 vol. 18mo. pp. 283. Price 62i cents. 

This small volume, recently given to the public by Professor Olmsted of Yale Col- 
lege, contains a plain, practical and instructive outline of the most important facta 
and principles both of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, adapted to learners of every 
age, but especially designed for common schools, and the younger classes of academies. 
It has met with remarkable success at the East, having been introduced as a class-book 
into the public schools of Boston, N. York, and other principal cities, and into many 
academies and private seminaries. An edition is now in preparation, in raised letters, 
for the use of the blind of the Massachusetts Asylum, under the direction of the cel- 
ebrated Dr. Howe of Boston. Among numerous recommendations, of the highest au- 
thority, in possession of the publishers, the following extracts are oflfered as specimens. 

From Cyrus Mason, D. D. Professor in New York City University, and Rector of 
the University Grammar School, and Lewis H. Hobby, Esq. Head Master. 
We are not accustomed to give testimonials of our approbation of books used in the 
Grammar School; but we are constrained to make an exception in favor of the Rudi- 
ments of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy. We have used this book Irom the day 
of its publication, with increasing pleasure to ourselves, and advantage to our pupils. 
It is preeminently adapted to the work of public instruction, clear, methodical, com- 
prehensive, and satisfactory, incapable of being used by a master who dues not under- 
stand it, or of being recited by a pupil who has not comprehended its meaning. la 
the preparation of this book, Professor Olmsted has made himself a benefactor of Ika 
echouls of our country." 

F)-om the Philadelphia North American. {From the pen of Rev. Albert Barnes.') ' 

This is the title of a book [Rudiments, &e.] which has evidently been prepared 
with much care, and which is intended to be adapted to promote a very important 
object in schools and academies. Professor Olmsted has prepared, on the same gener- 
al subject, a Treatise on Natural Philosophy, in 2 vols. Svo., a Treatise on Astronomy 
in one vol. 8vo., a School Philosophy, and a t^chool Astronomy, which have been re- 
ceived with ereat favor by the public, and which have passed through numerous edi- 
tions. The "little work whose title is given above, completes his plan, by adapting 
this kind of instruction to primary schools. The writer of this notice knows of no 
work of this description, at once so comprehensive and so clear, so full of important 
principles of science, and so attracti\e to the youthful mind. Its introduction into 
the schools of this city, and the schools and academies of this commonwealth, he 
would regard as a circumstance auguring most .favorably for the promotion of the best; 
interests of education. Indeed, many a man who graduated at College, and who has 
entered on his professional life, would Qnd it a work in which he would be greatly inter- 
ested and profited." 

From the New Engla^ider. 

«'An acquaintance with Professor Olmsted's larger treatises on Philosophy and As- 
tronomy, together with i he hieh reputation of the author as a scholar and practical 
teacher, led'us to expi ct in these Rudiments a work of no ordinary merit, but we must 
be permitted to say, that upon a careful perusal of the work we find our expectations 
more than realized. Olmsted's larger Philosophy and Astronomy are used as text- 
books, we believe, in a sreat majority of the colleges and universiiies in our country, 
and are enjoying an unexampled popularity, but, if we are not much mistaken, his 
Rudiments will become a text-book for more minds, and exert more influence on the 
intelligence and progress of the American people, than any of his preceediug works.". 

FomRev. Henry Jones, Principal of Cottage School on Golden Hill, Bridgeport, Ct: 
"Professor Olmsted, far from presenting only a forbidding outline of abstract propo- 
sitions, has every where laid down, in simple and agreeable language, the specific facta 
which constitute the materials of his science; and following the inductive and the only 
natural process, has drawn from these facts the general laws which are Iheir only le- 
gitimate expression. Hence, this little work proves to be at once the most intelligi- 
ble, the most instructive, and the most entertaining class book which it has ever beeu 
my fortune to use." 



19 



GALE'S PHILOSOPHY. 

Elements of IVatnral Philosophy; embracing the general principles of Me- 
chanics, Hydroslalics, Hydraulics, Pneuinaiics, Acoustics, Optica, Electricity, Galvan- 
ism, Magnetism and Astronomy; illustrated by several hundred engravings. Designed 
for the use of Schools and Academies. Eleventh Edition. By Leonard D. Gale, 
M. I)., Professor of Geology, Mineralogy, &c., N. Y. City University. 1 vol. 12nw). 
Sheep, pp. 280, price - - - ..-.--- 62 1 2c, 

*** Used in various portions of the Union, and recently introduced into the Public 
Schools of Cincinnati. 



GRAY'S CHEMISTRY. 

Elements of Chemistry; containing the principles of the Science, both exper- 
imental and theoretical. Intended as a text-book for Academies and Colleges. Illus- 
trated with numerous engravings. By Alonzo Gray, A. M., Prof, of Chemistry, etc., h> 
Marietta College. (Seventh edition, revised and enlarged.) 1 vol. 12mo. Sheep, pp. 
400, price 75 cents. 

What qualities should a text-book of Chemistry, adapted to our schools and acad*. 
mies. possess ? 

It should be short, for the time necessary for its study in detail cannot be given to 
it; and asain, all its principles, and all its important facts, can be expressed within 
the compa.s3 of an ordinary 12mo. 

The principal part of the book should be devoted to mineral chemistry, and but a 
small portion, camparatively, to vegetable and animal, for all the principles of the 
science are involved in the former, and the latter are shifting in their aspects from day 
lo day. 

It should be perspicuously arranged, and in such a manner that no subject shall be 
alluded to unless it has been previously described. 

It should abound with illustratio?is and experiments, and the latter should be 
clearly described and neatly figured, and of such a character as to be little expensive 
in their performance. 

And lastly, it should be correctly printed, and with a type sufficiently large to be 
read without fatigue. 

These qualiiies Mr. Gray's book possesses in a very high degree, more-so, certainly, 
trhan any otiier with which we are acquainted. The work of Turner is the only one 
that will compare with it, for clearness of arrangement and feriiliiy of illustration, but 
that is too extensive to be introduced into our schools and academies. Large portions 
of it are usually omitted in the colleges where it is studied. 

The author, after a very full and lucid exposition of the imponderable elements and 
the laws of chemical alfiniiy, has very judiciously divided the ponderable elements 
into, 1. Non metallic, and their primary compounds. 2, Metals, and their primary 
compounds. 3. Salts. To these succeeds a very succinct, but sufficiently copious, 
exposition of vegetable and animal chemistry, and the work concludes with a chapter 
upon chemical analysis. Thus the whole subject is exhausted, and by this simple 
classification, and by arranginj the different substances which are ranked under each 
class, in such an order thai he Is never obliged to assume as known, what has not been 
previously described, he has made this science, usually so perplexing to the student, 
a task v)f very little labor. And by the lucid style in which the work is written 
throughout, and by the numerous and well executed wood cuts with which it abounds, 
he baa conferred an important and permauenl.beneiit on this branch of educatioa« 



20 

From Joseph Ray, M. D., Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy^ 
Woodward College, Cincinnati. 

WooDWABD College, Sept. 22, 1842. 
I have examined with some altenlion a new worlc on Chemistry, by Alonzo Gray, 
and from what I have seen I believe to be an excellent text-book on this subject, it 
presents the nomenclature and leading facts of the science in a clear and distinct mao- 
uer. We are now using it in this Institution. JObiiPH KAY, JVl. U. 

From Thomas J, Mathews, Esq.., Professor of Mathematics Miami University ^ 

Oxford, Ohio. 
Having examined to some extent, the book referred to in the above statement of 
Prof. Kay, I take pleasure in staling that I fully concur with him in opinion as to the 
merits of the work, as being adapted to purposes of instruction in schools and colleges. 

THOMAS J. MATHEWS. 

Prom J. A. Warder, M. D., Professor of Chemistry, Cincinnati College. 
To THE Trustees of Public Schools op Cincinnati: 

Gentlemen,— Since the commencement of my present course of Chemical instruction, 
1 have met with "Gray's Elements of Chemistry," which I have kept upon my study- 
table ever since, in order to refer to it leisurely, as I proceed. It atfords me great plea- 
sure to speak favorably of it as an elementary work, and so far as I have progressed 
with the examination, it appears remarkably free from errors, which are so often the 
bane of elementary works for schools. In this respect, especially, it is a desirable 
volume, it is also clear and full as is necessary for popular instruction. The arrange- 
ment is one which in many respects I consider preferable to that of most authors. 

Understanding that you are looking for a text-book, I lake the liberty of recommend* 
ing it unhesitatingly to your notice. 

Yours, truly, J. A. WARDER, M. D. 



Prom Louis Marie Pin, Professor of Chemistry and Natural Philosophy, St.. Xo- 
vier's College, Cincinnati. 

Long since I have been looking out, but in vain, for a work on Chemistry so judi- 
ciously arranged as to be used for a text-book in Colleges. Several valuable works 
have been written in this country on that subject, but they are too lengthy for that 
purpose. The shorter ones which were compiled for ihat end are, most of them, so 
injudicious, and even so inexact and full of blunders, that they ought to be considered 
as utterly unfit for the intent. But lately uliere appeared a work that does honor to the 
compiler: it bears the title, '-Elements of Chemistry; containing the principles of the 
science, both experimental and theoretical, by Alonzo Gray, A. M," 

It is arranged and divided vviih judgment and understanding. In a moderately- 
short compass, because matters are selected wilh sagacity, it comprehends neverihelesa 
all that can be taught in a collegiate class. It gives to the student the advantage of 
not having loo much to commit to memory, and the teacher tliat of explanation and 
amplification. It is a precious work. I am satisfied that had I perused every article 
it contains, I could add yet to the present recommendation which is a general one, 
thai they are all as correct as can be expected. It is with satisfaction that I acknow- 
ledge the merit of the aDove, and dare recommend it to High Schools and Colleges aa 
the best thai I know of in the English language lor their purpose. It is now the text- 
book at our College of St. Xavier. LUUIS.MAKIE PIN. 



Robert Peter, M. D. , Professor of Chemistry, Medical Departmeiit, Transylvania 

University, say a: 
"I think it admirably adapted to the purpose for which it was intended, viz. as a 
text-book for Academies, High (schools, and Colleges. It possesses the advantage of 
being concise, clear and comprehensive; and, in a small size, gives as correct a digest 
of the extensive science of Chemistry as any other book of its kind I have ever ex- 
amined." 

♦** This work of Professor Gray, is generally used in the Institutions of New York 
and New England, and is becoming extensively introduced in the Western Slates. 



21 

HITCHCOCK'S GEOLOGY. 

Elementary ficology, by Edward Hitchcock, JL. 1^. »., President of Am- 

herst College, Geologist lo Lhe folate of Massdchusells, etc. etc. Third stereotype edi- 
tion. 1 vol. 12mo, cloth, pp. 350. illustrated, ftl,25. 

THE PUBLISHERS BEG LEAVE TO CALL THE ATTENTION OF THE PUBLIC 
TO THE FOLLOWING UNSOLICITED NOTICES OF THE ELEMENTARY 
GEOLOGY, FROM GENTLEMEN EMINENTLY QUALIFIED TO JUDGE OF 
ITS MERITS. 

From Gideon A. McmCell, LL. D., F. R. S-, F. G. S., 4-c. London. Author ofihe 
Wonders of Geology, ^c. 
"I have obtained a copy of your Treatise on Geology. It is an admirable work. It 
has been my carriage companion for some time." 

From Prof. B. Silliman, LL. D., of Yale College. 
f "I am greatly in fault in not having answered your kind letter of Aug. 20lh, Vfith a 
copy of your valuable work on Geology, I took the work with me to the west in iha 
expectation of lookin'' it over and although I failed to read it satisfactorily, I glanced 
at it enough to convince me of its high value, and shall recommend it in my Lectures. ^ 

From Prof. J. W. Webster, of Harvard University. 
"I have just received a copy of your ' Elementary Geology,' for which I beg you to 
accept many thanks. I am thankful that you have found lime to present- us with so 
excellent a view of the science, and shall recommend the work warmly to the class 
attending my lectures. 

F-om Prof. C. Dewey, of Rochester, N. Y. 
.' "I introduced your Geolojry into our Academy. It is so vastly better than any thing 
in the English language with which I am acquainted, that I boast over it. It is ad- 
mirable for the College course." 

From Prof. Henry D. Rogers, of the University of Pennsylvania. 
"I thank you sincerely for a copy of your work, and yet more for presenting us with 
an Elementary Treatise on Gi'olosy in a f)rm so well adapted to the wants of instruc- 
tors. Having for several years past fell the want of just such a book for my class ia 
the University, I hailed its appearance with real satisfaction." 

From Prof. W. W. Mather^ Geologist to one qf the Districts of New York, and to 

the State of Ohio. 
"I have examined your little work on Geology with much interest and satisfaction. 
It presents a large mass of matter in a small compass; is lucid, concise, and its mate- 
rials are arranged in the most convenient form for the student. It seems to form a 
happy medium between the more elementary books for schools, and ihoseforthe more 
advanced students of geology. Its copious references to various works on geology, wiJl 
be a great advantage to those who choose to go to the original sources and dive deeper 
into the various subjects discussed. 

Froin Prof. J W. Bailey, of the Military Academy, West Point. 
"1 have recently perused with much pleasure your Elementary Geology, and con- 
sider it a most valuable contribution to science, and highly creditable to yourself and 
our country. lam glad we have such a work lo wliich to refer students. U I had 
known of your publication sooner, I should have adopted it as our text-book; but tho 
Class had already provided themselves with Lyell's work. 1 shall recommend its 
adoption next year, if as is almost certain, I meet with no work in the mean lime bet- 
ter suited lo oiir peculiar wants at this Institution." 

From Prof. C. B. Adams, of Middlchury College. 
"Your elementary book on geology has alforded me great pleasure; and I hav©; sinco 
our Pataloguo waa primed, adopted it as a leil-book. " 



22 

The following notices of the work, from among the many that have appeared^ havc 
been selectedfrom some of the leading periodicals of the country,} 

From the American Journal of Science and Arts, for October, 1840. 

"The readers of this Jouraal and those who know the progress of American Geology, 
are well aware of the important services Prof. Hitchcock has rendered to this bran'ch 
of science, through a period of many years, both by his laborious explorations and his 
written works. In the present instance, he has attempted to prepare a work which 
shall fill a vacancy long felt by the instructors of geology in this conntry, a work 
which, while it gives a good view of the progress of the science in other countries, 
draws its illustrations mainly from American facts. From the rapid glance which we 
have been able to bestow upon this performance, we should think that Prof. Hitch- 
cock had succeeded in imparting this feature to his book." 

From the American Biblical Repository for October, 1840. 

"The appearance of this volume from the pen of Prof. Hitchcock, will be peculiarly 
gratifying- to many in the community. It is designed to be used as a text-book for 
classes in geology, in Colleges and other Seminaries of learning, and also, to supply 
the wants of the 'general reader, who has not the leisure to study the numerous arrti 
extended treatises that have been written on different heads of this subject. The plan 
of it, we think, is admirably adapted to the first of these uses, and nearly or quite as 
well suited to the second." 

From the North American Review, for January, 1841. ' 
"Professor Hitchcock has been too long and favorably known to scientific men, both 
of the new world and of the old to make it necessary for us to say, with what ample 
qualifications he undertakes the task before him. His work is no 'secondary formation,* 
based on the published works of European writers, but in every part bears the impress 
of acute and original observation, and happy tact in presenting the immense variety 
of subjects treated in the following Sections into which the book is divided. 

"The fifth Section is devoted to Organic Remains. It occupies one fourth of the 
whole work, and is illustrated with the best cuts in the book. We venture to say 
that there is not in our language so neat and compressed, yet so clear and correct, aa 
account of the 'Wonders of Geology.' " 



NEWMAN'S POLITICAL ECONOMY.^ 

Elements of Political Economy, By Samuel P. Newman, Lecturer on Po. 
litical Economy, Bowdoin College. 1 vol, 12mo. ...... 75c. 

*** The best security for a free government^ and generally for the public peace and 
morals is, that the whole comanunity should be well informed upon its political, as well 
as its other interests.— Lord Brougham. 

f^'This work of Prof. Newman has been approved and adopted by the board of 
Public Schools, for Uie city of Cincinnati. 



SAWYER'S MORAL PHILOSOPHY.' 

Elements of Moral PMlosophy on the basis of the Ten Commandmentfl, 
containing a complete system of Moral Duties; by Leicester A. Sawyer, A. M., Preeu 
dent of Central College, Ohio. 1 vol. 12mo. Just published. 

*** The Publishers invite the attention of Teachers to this recently published work 
on 'Moral Science,' not doubting that it will be found a treatise of peculiar merit, well 
adapted to meet the wants of students in our Academies, Select Schools and Colleges. 
They take pleaflure in presenting the following favorable notice from Rev, B. P. 
Aydelotte, D, J)., far many years past President of Wooduaid_Collegei Cincinnati. 



Cincinnaii, September 8th, 1845. "^ 
>"^I have carefully read Sawyer's Moral Philosophy to the 112th page, and examined 
hie system througliout. The style is clear, sententious, and at times ornate, though 
always in good taste. It abounds in valuable truths frequently conveyed in an axio- 
matical manner— well calculated to fix them in the memory and recal them for use. In 
some of the more profound and abstract reasonings of the work, many good men may 
differ from the author, but all such will admire his kind candid truth-loving spirit, and 
rejoice that he has based his whole system just where all sound ethics must be— on 
THE Bible. 

Such a work cannot but be a valuable addition lo our text books for Colleges and 
Educational Institutions generally. B. P. AYDELOTTE. 



BUTLER'S ANALOGY. 

The Analogy of Natural and Revealed Kcligiou to the constitution 
and course of Nature. By Joseph Butler, LL. Dw „Late Lord Bishop of Durham. Fif- 
teenth Edition, 1 vol. 12mo • 75c. 

P *+* The Analogy of Butler enjoys a reputation scarcely second to any other book 
than the Bible; to praise it would be a work of supererogation. As a specimen of an- 
alogical reasoning, we suppose it has never been equalled.— ZVeto England PiirHaai. 



MUSIC BOOKS. 



THE YOUNG CHOIR. 

By W. B, BRADBURY AND C. W. SANDERS. Twentieth edition. 

r 

The' IToung Choir contains 144 pages. The Music and Poetry are adapted to 
Sabbath Schools, Day Schools and Primary Classes. 

Mr. M. H. Newman, Sir— I have examined your valuable little musical publication, 
*The Young Choir,' and feel gratified to be able to express my unconditional approbatioa 
of the same. It is just the thing wanted for juvenile classes; and I hopeit may be widely 
and extensively patronized. Respectfully yours, S. B.POND. 

Late Vocal Leader of the New York Sacred Music Society. 



THE SCHOOL SINGER, OR YOUNG CHOIR'S 

COMPANION. 

BY W. BS BRADBURY AND C. W. SANDERS. Twelfth edition. '' 

^ This work is designed for Public and select Schools. It is of a medium size, con- 
taining 204 pages, with music and Poetry calculated lo cheer and encourage the youth- 
ful learner in ihe pursuit of knowledge. 40c. 

f Of the number of Singing Books which we have had the pleasure of examining, 
none so fully meet our views of what should constitute a juvenile singing book as the 
one before us. The book is about two-thirds as large as an ordinary church singing 
book, and contains one hundred and seventy-Jive songs for the young. The music is 
simple and spirited— just such as is calculated to interest and inspire the youthful 
heart. The elementary part of the work is clear, concise and thorough. We hava 
■witnessed with great pleasure the growing interest manifested in the education of the 
young in the delightful art of singing. Certainly no one branch of education could 



24 

more conduce to our peace and happiness as a people. We had the pleasure of UsteM' 
ing to one of Mr. Bradbury's concens, at the Broadway Tabernacle- where about five 
hu'ndred of his youthful performers warbled forth specimens of these beautiful melodies 
in such a manner as to wind both the songs and the singers closely around our hearts. 
—New York Tribune. 

From the Evening Post, Edited by Wm. C. Dryant^ the Poet, 
"We take pleasure in commending this work to the notice of all interested in the 
education and happiness of the rising generation. Parents, Teachers, Superintendents 
and Trustees of Schools, if you want to make your children happy, let them learn 4o 
sing. They are all singers by nature, let them be so by education. 

The melodies of "The School Singer" are of the most brilliant, soul-stirring charac- 
ter, the harmony rich— the poetry chaste and excellent. We were one among the 
thousands who listened with feelings of inexpressible delight, to the performance of 
many of these songs, by about five hundred of Mr. Bradbury's young Singers, in the 
Broadway Tabernacle. 



THE PSALMODIST. 

A choice collection of Psalm and Kymu Tnnos, chiefly nctv; adapted 
to the very numerous Meters now in use, together with Chants, Anthems, Motetd^and 
various other Pieces for the use of Choirs, Congregations, Singing Schools 

and Musical Associations, most of which are now for the first time presented 
to the American Public. By Thomas Hastings and William B. Bradbury. Published 
by , WM. H. MOORE & CO. \ 

Price ■Unusually liow. 110 Main St., between Third and Fourth, CincinnaU.' 

' The reputation of Mr. Hastings as a man of extensive acquaintance with the science 
of Music, and a gentleman of excellent taste also, and that of Mr. Bradbury as a 
thorough going practical musician, and the author of several very popular publications, 
cannot fail to procure for the Psalmodist a ready and extensive sale. The preface to 
this work contains a remark, which for its justness and propriety, we cannot refrain 
from quotinsr, as it is exactly in accordance with an opinion we have long entertained. 
*'Music for The Church should be chaste as well as simple and sentimental. Abstruse 
or antiquated harmonies, questionable oddities inrythm, and even secular frivolities ia 
style, may enlist attention, and afiford entertainment while the novelty lasts. Yet 
such things form but a miserable substitute for that kind of pathos, which is the life 
and soul of genuine music. Something far different is needed to call forth the fervor 
of an enliehiened devotion." The compilers then very modestly say, that they have 
endeavore'd to supply this much-needed something, and it is but justice to their ac- 
knowledged talents to say, that they have succeeded admirably. We could point to 
many tunes in the collection as proof of the correctness of this remark, but we think 
the three found on pages 176 and 177, and the one entitled "There is a Land." p. 265 
267, will be sufficient.— Cftrisi. Adv. and Jour., Aug, 31. J 

' This new book of sacred music is said by competent judges to be in many respects 
by far the best ever published. The gentlemen by whom it is prepared are universal- 
ly known to be eminently competent for such a labor, and we doubt not they have 
presented a work in every way worthy of public patronage.— Cowr. and Enq. 

The Psalmodist.— Under this title we have a new and "choice collection of Psalm 
and Hymn tunes, chiefly new, adapted to the very numerous meters now in use, to- 
gether wiih chants, anthems, motets, and various other pieces, for the use of choirg, 
congregations, singing schools and musical associations, most of which are now foi; 
the first time presented to the American public," 

When to this announcement we add that this book is prepared by our venerahlo 
friend Thomas Hastings, whose praise is in many, if not in all churches, and by Wm. 
B. Bradbury, the popular teacher of music to the young, our readers will be confident 
that the work will precisely meet the wants of multitudes. The styles of music 
which will suit the tastes of these two editors, must be widely different— Mr. H. incul- 



25 

eating: tho soft and subduing tones, while Mr. B. delights in bold and animating strains; 
and we may therefore infer willi safely that their combiaed judgement and industry 
have given us a book that will be widely popular, among all lovers of chaste and ele- 
gant music. 

This is a very suitable place in which to speak of the importance of paymg more 
attention to sacred music, as a part of divine worship.^ It is a matter of astonishment 
that so few out of the many whom God lias endowed with good voices, make any at- 
tempts to turn their powers to His praise. There is a waste of talent here to be an- 
swered for. We wish that in all our cliurches classes were always in training in this 
important art; and to all sucli classes we commend the Psalniodist, by Messrs. Hast- 
ings and Bradbury.— iV. y. Observer, Aug. 31, 

The Psalmodist.—h. collection of sacred music, the excellence of w^hich is suffi- 
ciently guaranteed by the fact that it is edited by Thos. Hastings and Wm. B. Bradbu- 
ry. — Comtnercial Adv> 

' 77ie Psahnodist.—k somewhat extended examination of the 'Psalmodist' has con- 
vinced us that as a valuable and highly useful, as well as pleasing collection of Wiisic, 
it has few if any superiors or equals among the legion which have been issued during 
the last fifteen years. The airs are siaiple^but beautiful, and most pleasing to th* ear. 
The compilers, and in a good degree, the authors, are Thomas Hastings, whoso fame 
as a musical composer is1;o-extensive with our land, and Wm. B. Bradbury, ono of the 
first musicians of New York. We can cheerfully recommend the 'Psalmodist' n, the fa- 
vorable attention of all choirs who may desire one of the best collections of sacred 
music e:i.ia.n\..— Albany Ecening Journal. 

We have here a singing book that every choir, singing school, family and Individual 
should possess. Indeed the combined eltbrts of two such editors as Messnj. Hastings 
and Bradbury could not fail to produce a work that will meet the wants of the singing 
community throughout the United t^tates. Before we had any knowledge of the in- 
tention of ihese gentlemen to combine their talents in this great work, we had occa- 
sion to allude to ihem as having been eminently instrumental in elevating the 
standard of sacred music in the churches of our city. They have now done a noble 
service for the American public generally, for which they will not long remain unre- 
warded. We could point out some of the excellencies of this work, beginning with 
the course of Elementary Instruction, and proceeding through all the range of varied 
and captivating melodies and rich harmonies, but the book will speak (or sing) for it- 
self. Choristers and teachers of Music who wish to cultivate an elegant and purely 
classic style of performance in their choirs and schools should immediately introduce 
"The Psalmodist."— xV. Y. Tribune. 

The Psalmodist.— k new collection of sacred music, with this title, has just been 
published by M. H. Newman, 199 Broadway. The work has been prepared by Thos. 
Hastings and Wm. B. Bradbury, whose acknowledged taste in musical matters is. a 
Bufficient recommendation of its va.lue.— Christian Intelligencer. 

,' We opened "The Psalmodist" with large expectations. Mr. Hastings, the senior 
editor, has been in the field either as a teacher or composer, for nearly forty years.— 
And his large and ripe experience— his indefatigable zeal and perseverance as a stu- 
(jent— his decided religious character— his acknowledged skill as a composer and har- 
monist, and last, thoutrh not least, his well-known poetic taste and ability, all gave us 
reason to look for a work of undoubted excellence. In this we have not been disap- 
pointed. . . , t,t 

We need music for the people; and we are happy to find on examination, that Mr. 
Hastinsrs has given us more music of this kind in the Psalmodist, from his own pen, 
than can be found in any of his previous works. He has struck an entirely different 
vein. . 

We must beg to refer to a few pieces in the Psalmodist which struck us as being ot a 
highly excellent character. We are pleased with the spirit and structure of 'Torring- 
ford,' p. 41. We are not apprised of its source, but we attribute it to Mr. Hastings, and 
mark it 'capital.' Another fatherless tune, by the name of 'Belgrade,' p. 44, though 
net probably designed for common use, is a vigorous fugue, to the words, 'Awake our 
souls, awake our fears,' &c., and is well adapted for singing schools. The next thing 
that we have marked is 'Libnah,' p. 47, adorned with an 'H.,' which is another tune 
for the people, but quite out of the author's usual track. We next notice 'Edwards/ 
p 47, by Mr. Bradbury. In the same vein as Libnah— worth its weight in gold, with- 
out lugging in the last line. This incessant repetition of the last line is a weariness. 
We should use Edwards without the last etrain. 'Retreat,' the tune above it on the 



26 

game pa?e, by Mr, H. In the key of D is good-excellent.; but It should have been set 
in the key of B b. Those high tones do not express the subject. 'Shushan,' p 54, by 
Mr. B, is another capital tune. 'Berrige,'an anonymous tune in L. M. Double, on p5y, 
possesses much vivacity and beauty. 'Rest,' by Mr. B. p 6'2, is one of the sweet- 
est things of the kind in the book. We were also pleased with 'Kin^-sbury,' p G7, by E. 
Howe, Jr. till we got quite to the end; and there we felt that the autlu>rhad'not finished 
his work. For so short a piece he has modulated too much, and the balance of power 
is evidently in the key of F, 3rd line, Oakland, p. 71, by Mr. B. could not be better- 
ed. For a tune of that cast it is superb. But one of Mr. B.'s happiest elforts is Hol- 
land, p. 73. This tune is surpassingly beautiful, and must become a favorite. We find 
also, on p. 75, Zephyr, which is almost a heavenly zephyr. If Mr. B. has much music 
of this kind in his treasury, he will yet become one of the most popular and useful 
composers of Psalmody in this country. We find no singular originality in these tunes, 
but a chaste and sweet simplicity, and a pathos which is truly captivating. 

We might designate many other tunes, in all the other meters, but our limits forbid. 
We must, however, just refer the reader to Acadia, 78, Middletun, lOG, Saurin, 108, 
Brainerd, 113, and Baden, 1-23. j > > i 

Many of the original anthems and set pieces are productions of great beauty and 
power. One of the sweetest we ever heard, is 'Cease ye mourners,' p. 246, by Mr, 
Hastings. We had supposed that Mr. H. had given us his masterpiece in this vein of 
music, but the present tune surpasses, in our judsement, any previous one. 'There 
is an hour of hallowed peace,' by Mr. Bradbury, p." 250, is also one of the mo.st charming 
pieces we have heard this many a day. It commences in a gentle 3—4 movement and 
the first strain ends in pianissimo, with only the sopranos. There is then a spric^htly 
interlude in 2—4 time, after which the soprano leads oft' in thrilling strains, followed 
by the other parts in a slight fugue, to the words ' 'Tis then the soul is freed from fears,' 
&c. These productions of Mr. Bradbury, we must say, have taken us entirely by sur- 
prise. We knew he possessed talents, great industry and promise, but we were not 
prepared to expect from him productions of so high an order as those we have enumer- 
ated. We might refer to others of equal merit, as 'The Savior calls,' 288, and 'For be- 
hold the day cometh,' 300. If he had contributed no other than this last piece to the 
work, it would have been enough to establish his reputation as a composer. 

Mr. Hastings has also furnished several other elegant anthems and set pieces for the 
work, but we must content ourselves with mentioning only two, 'Who shall weep,' p. 
276, and the anthem on p. 2G2. These two pieces alone are worth the price of the book.' 
We cordially wish that the work might be used in every sanctuary in the land.— iV. 
Y. Eva7igelist, Sept. 12th, 1844. 



THE YOUN^G MELODIST. 

BYWM. B. BRADBURY. 

The IToiing Melodist, a choice collection of Social Moral and Patriotic Songg^ 
composed and arranged for one, tvro, and three voices. By Wm. B. Bradbury. Just 
published 

The design of this work is to furnish a collection of songs and pieces adapted for 
use in common schools and academies. They are generally of a cheerful, pleasing 
character, and not only entirely free from all immoral or improper tendency, but are 
replete with noble sentiments and good moral influence. 7'he musical merits of the 
work, Mr. Bradbunfs reputation, and his previous very successful works, fully 
guaranty, while it is just to add that it is by far a more careful and comprehensive 
work than any he has before published. It is neatly printed, and will be gladly wel- 
comed by unnumbered young singers. The efforts to introduce music into our schools, 
as a part of daily education, has our warmest approbation. It is coming to be exten- 
sively practiced, and has the decided approbation of the most eminent teachers and 
friends of education.— jYiew York Evangelist. 



